Evidence mapPaperPMID 34348680Full record

ReviewBMC psychiatry2021

The role of trust and hope in antipsychotic medication reviews between GPs and service users a realist review.

L M Grünwald, C Duddy, R Byng, N Crellin, J Moncrieff

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Non-pharmacologicaL InterVEntions for Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain (RESOLVE) in People Living With Severe Mental Illness: A Realist Synthesis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Interdisciplinary medication reviews of psychiatric patients - A mixed method evaluation.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antipsychotic management in general practice: serial cross-sectional study (2011-2020).The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Primary care and bipolar disorder.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

L M GrünwaldDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Rd, Bloomsbury, London, W1T 7NF, UK. lisa.gruenwald.17@ucl.ac.uk.
C DuddyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
R ByngPeninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK.
N CrellinNuffield Trust, 59 New Cavendish Street, London, W1G 7LP, UK.
J MoncrieffDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Rd, Bloomsbury, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Goodmayes Hospital · GBNuffield Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners (GPs) have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support.

aimTo explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health input. DESIGN &

settingRealist review in general practice settings.

methodA realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews.

resultsMeaningful Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to conducting such reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory.

conclusionsThe review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsGeneral PractitionersPsychotic DisordersSchizophreniaHumansTrustAntipsychotic AgentsAntipsychotic medicationGeneral practiceMedication reviewPrimary carePsychosisSchizophreniaSevere mental illness (SMI)Shared decision making (SDM)StigmaTrust

Identifiers

PMID34348680
PMCPMC8340528
OpenAlexW3188730612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.