Cited by 98Schizophrenia research and treatmentPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePsychiatric care and mental health services

Patient and prescriber perspectives on long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics and analysis of in-office discussion regarding LAI treatment for schizophrenia

Open access
Potkin, Steven, Bera, Rimal, Zubek, Donna, Lau, Gina·2013·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The research goal is to better understand prescriber, patient, and caregiver perspectives about long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic therapy and how these perspectives affect LAI use. Addressing these perspectives in the clinic may lead to greater success in achieving therapeutic goals for the patient with schizophrenia. METHODS: Ethnographic information was collected from a non-random sample of 69 prescriber-patient conversations (60 with community mental health center [CMHC] psychiatrists; 9 with nurse-practitioners) recorded during treatment visits from August 2011 to February 2012, transcribed and analyzed. Discussions were categorized according to 11 predetermined CMHC topics. In-person observations were also conducted at 4 CMHCs, including home visits by researchers (n = 15 patients) prior to the CMHC visit and observations of patients receiving injections and interacting with staff. Telephone in-depth interviews with psychiatrists, patients, and caregivers to gather additional information on LAI discussion, prescription, or use were conducted. RESULTS: Antipsychotic treatment decisions were made without patient or caregiver input in 40 of 60 (67%) of psychiatrist-patient conversations. Involvement of patients or caregivers in treatment decisions was greater when discussing LAI (15 of 60 [25%]) vs oral antipsychotic treatment (5 of 60 [8%]). LAIs were not discussed by psychiatrists in 11 of 22 (50%) patients taking oral antipsychotics. When offered, more LAI-naïve patients expressed neutral (9 of 19 [47%]) rather than favorable (3 of 19 [16%]) or unfavorable (7 of 19 [37%]) responses. Prescribers were most concerned about potentially damaging the therapeutic relationship and side-effects when discussing LAIs while patient resistance was often related to negative feelings about injections. Psychiatrists had some success in overcoming patient objections to LAIs by addressing and decomposing initial resistance. More than half (11 of 19 [58%]) of LAI-naïve patients agreed to start LAI treatment following office visits. Patient-described benefits of LAIs vs orals included perceived rapid symptom improvement and greater overall efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, many psychiatrists did not offer LAIs and most patients and caregivers were not involved in antipsychotic treatment decision making. Opportunities to increase active patient engagement, address resistances, guide patient drug-formulation selection, and provide better LAI-relevant information for more individualized approaches to treating the patient with schizophrenia were present.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-244x-13-261

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health: Schizophrenia The NICE Guideline on Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Adults in Primary and Secondary Care Updated Edition. Leicester: The British Psychological Society 2010

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Potkin, S., Bera, R., Zubek, D., & Lau, G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Otsuka (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Potkin, Steven
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2013-10-16
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
261-261
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096003243
Cited by
98
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Otsuka America
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
long-acting injectable antipsychotics, schizophrenia, caregiver involvement, community mental health centers, therapeutic relationship, patient preferences, oral antipsychotics, medication adherence, shared decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Delayed-Action Preparations, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Psychiatry, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotic Agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review