Cited by 80Schizophrenia research and treatmentBipolar Disorder and TreatmentMental Health Treatment and Access

Positive and negative effects of antipsychotic medication: an international online survey of 832 recipients

Open access
Read, John, Williams, James·2019·Current Drug Safety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medication is currently the treatment of choice for psychosis, but few studies directly survey the first-hand experience of recipients. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the experiences and opinions of an international sample of users of antipsychotic drugs, regarding positive and negative effects. METHODS: An online direct-to-consumer questionnaire was completed by 832 users of antipsychotics, from 30 countries - predominantly USA, UK and Australia. This is the largest such sample to date. RESULTS: Over half (56%) thought, the drugs reduced the problems they were prescribed for, but 27% thought they made them worse. Slightly less people found the drugs generally 'helpful' (41%) than found them 'unhelpful' (43%). While 35% reported that their 'quality of life' was 'improved', 54% reported that it was made 'worse'. The average number of adverse effects reported was 11, with an average of five at the 'severe' level. Fourteen effects were reported by 57% or more participants, most commonly: 'Drowsiness, feeling tired, sedation' (92%), 'Loss of motivation' (86%), 'Slowed thoughts' (86%), and 'Emotional numbing' (85%). Suicidality was reported to be a side effect by 58%. Older people reported particularly poor outcomes and high levels of adverse effects. Duration of treatment was unrelated to positive outcomes but significantly related to negative outcomes. Most respondents (70%) had tried to stop taking the drugs. The most common reasons people wanted to stop were the side effects (64%) and worries about long-term physical health (52%). Most (70%) did not recall being told anything at all about side effects. CONCLUSION: Clinical implications are discussed, with a particular focus on the principles of informed consent, and involving patients in decision making about their own lives.

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 · 10.2174/1574886314666190301152734

Cites

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?

  • Antipsychotic use in severe mental illnesses is associated with metabolic dysregulation, including antipsychotic-induced weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

    “Antipsychotic use in severe mental illnesses (SMI) is associated with metabolic dysregulation, including antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and dyslipidemia.”

    From The Effect of Semaglutide on Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain and Other Metabolic Parameters, among a Cohort of Inpatients (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Introduction (Adverse Effects; page not available) identifies metabolic effects as adverse effects of newer antipsychotics, and the Results (Adverse Effects; page not available) report weight gain among survey respondents. The cited passages do not identify type 2 diabetes or dyslipidemia as outcomes, so those specific parts of the claim are not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50 · Cited by 80

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Mosher L. Gosden R. Beder S. Drug companies and ‘schizophrenia’: Unbridled capitalism meets madness. Models of madness: psychological, social and biological approaches to psychosis. 2nd ed Read J. Dillon J. London Routledge 2013 125 140

Authors
Read, J., & Williams, J.
Affiliations
  • University of East London (GB)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Read, John
Venue
Current Drug Safety
Published
2019-09-17
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
173-181
ISSN
1574-8863 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2920365413
Cited by
80
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Current Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEL Research Repository (University of East London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEL Research Repository (University of East London) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
antipsychotic drugs, psychosis, patient experience, adverse drug reactions, quality of life, sedation, suicidality, informed consent, patient decision-making, treatment duration, older adults, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Suicide, 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