Cited by 49Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and Access

Mental health professionals’ views and experiences of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation

Open access
Cooper, Ruth E., Hanratty, Éanna, Morant, Nicola, Moncrieff, Joanna·2019·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The widely established treatment for psychosis is long-term antipsychotic medication. However, many people stop taking this treatment, and request other options. There are also growing concerns about adverse effects, but currently no professional guidelines to support reducing or stopping these drugs. The views and experiences of individual mental health professionals around reducing and stopping antipsychotics are therefore crucial in treatment decisions. METHODS: We conducted 7 focus groups with prescribing psychiatrists and other members of community-based statutory mental health services in London. Participants discussed their views about, experiences, and processes of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants acknowledged that antipsychotics can have severe adverse effects. They were generally supportive of trying to reduce these drugs to the lowest effective dose, although stopping antipsychotics was less acceptable. Prior experiences of adverse events after reduction or discontinuation meant that both were approached with caution. Reduction was also reported to be hampered by organisational and knowledge barriers. Lack of resources, pressure to discharge, and poor continuity of care were seen as organisational barriers. Knowledge barriers included inadequate evidence about who might be best suited to reduction, and lack of guidance about how this could be done safely. This meant that reduction was often prompted by patients, and sometimes actively discouraged, and stability with maintenance treatment was often favoured. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns about risk and other barriers means that clinicians are often reluctant to implement reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotic medication. In order to increase the treatment options available to service users, more research and guidance on how to minimise the risks of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation is required to enable clinicians to engage more constructively with service users requests, offering people more choice and control in managing their mental health condition.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0218711

Cites

54 of 54 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

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

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Psychosis and Schizophrenia in Adults: Prevention and Management. 2014. 32207892
  2. [20]Leucht S, Tardy M, Komossa K, Heres S, Kissling W, Salanti G, et al Antipsychotic drugs versus placebo for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012; 379: 2063– 2071. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60239-6 22560607 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [50]Liegghio M. A denial of being: psychiatrization as epistemic violence. Mad Matters. Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc; 2013 pp. 122– 129.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, R. E., Hanratty, É., Morant, N., & Moncrieff, J.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • North East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Ruth E.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2019-06-20
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
e0218711
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952448336
Cited by
49
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0514-20004)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
antipsychotic reduction, antipsychotic discontinuation, psychosis, mental health professionals' perspectives, adverse drug reactions, organizational barriers, continuity of care, long-term antipsychotic treatment, community mental health services
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Decision Making, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, London, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Perception, Psychotic Disorders, Antipsychotic Agents, Focus Groups, Withholding Treatment, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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