Evidence mapPaperPMID 41662050Full record

ArticlePLOS mental health2025

Psychotropic deprescribing across different prescribing professions in New Mexico and Louisiana.

Phillip M Hughes, Joshua D Niznik, Robert E McGrath, Casey R Tak, Robert B Christian, Betsy L Sleath, Kathleen C Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Phillip M HughesDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5472-1677
Joshua D NiznikDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Robert E McGrathSchool of Psychology and Counseling, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2589-5088
Casey R TakDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Robert B ChristianCarolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3229-8169
Betsy L SleathDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Kathleen C ThomasDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1611-5393

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to assess differences in the rates of deprescribing between prescribing psychologists, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians. MarketScan private insurance claims were used to develop a longitudinal active-comparator, prevalent-user cohort of patients who were treated with a psychotropic medication from psychologists, psychiatrists, or primary care physicians for at least 90 days in New Mexico or Louisiana (states where psychologists can prescribe) between 2005-2021. The type of provider (psychologist, psychiatrist, or primary care physicians) who prescribed the psychotropic medication was the exposure of interest. Three measures of deprescribing were used as outcomes: deprescribing without replacement, complete discontinuation of prescribing, or a sustained reduction in the prescribed days' supply. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics during the six months prior to their initial prescription were measured as covariates. Inverse propensity of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between provider groups, creating two weighted analytic cohorts with covariate balance: psychologists versus psychiatrists and psychologists versus primary care physicians. We estimated doubly-robust Cox Proportional Hazards models for each deprescribing measure in both cohorts. Prescribing psychologists deprescribed without replacement more than psychiatrists (Hazard ratio [95% CI] = 1.13 [1.06, 1.20]) and less than primary care physicians (0.73 [0.69, 0.78]). Conversely, they reduced the days' supply less often than psychiatrists (0.79 [0.69, 0.91]) and more than primary care physicians (1.64 [1.42, 1.90]). There were no differences in complete discontinuation between provider types. Prescribing psychologists deprescribe at a rate between psychiatrists and primary care physicians. Findings varied depending on the deprescribing measure used, suggesting psychotropic-specific deprescribing measures are needed.

Identifiers

PMID41662050
PMCPMC12798385

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.