ArticlePLOS mental health2025
Psychotropic deprescribing across different prescribing professions in New Mexico and Louisiana.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.