ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2025
Interdisciplinary medication reviews of psychiatric patients - A mixed method evaluation.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Imperative of Involving Nurses When Reviewing Psychiatric Medication: a Qualitative Study of Implementing Physician-Led Medication Reviews for Psychiatric Outpatients With Diabetes.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients at psychiatric homes are a vulnerable group with several factors complicating their pharmacological treatment. Psychiatric patients in stable treatment are transferred from specialist care to primary care, which presents new challenges as general practitioners (GPs) may feel that they are not sufficiently trained in prescribing and tapering psychiatric drugs. Medication reviews (MRs) have been seen to improve the appropriateness of pharmacological treatment - especially when performed in interdisciplinary teams. Objective: Thus, the aim of this study was to examine to which extent it was possible to conduct interdisciplinary MRs at a psychiatric home and with patient involvement. The study was a mixed-method evaluation study that included 11 quantitative MRs analyzed by descriptive analysis and 5 qualitative semi-structured interviews analyzed by thematic coding analysis. Results: The MR performance formed the basis of an interview study. The patients' GPs and psychiatrist accepted 32 of the 37 (86 %) recommended changes to the current medication. At six months follow-up, 75 % of changes had been implemented. Three main interview themes and seven sub-themes were identified, covering collaboration between healthcare professionals, patient involvement, and the MR method. Conduction of interdisciplinary MRs was affected by e.g. challenges in the collaboration between GP and psychiatrists and patient involvement. Conclusion: Interdisciplinary MRs for psychiatric patients were seen as beneficial by healthcare professionals and had a high implementation rate of medication changes. In future use of the MR model, the involvement of patients and GPs should be ensured and include a psychiatrist in the MR team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.