Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:10:46.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atypical antipsychotic use in Australian patients: cross-sectional study of uptake and perceived benefit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

C Harvey,
G Hawthorne,
H Herrman,
C Graham and
A Favilla
C Harvey
Affiliation:
Psychosocial Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne
G Hawthorne
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne
H Herrman
Affiliation:
School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne
C Graham
Affiliation:
Formerly in the Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
A Favilla
Affiliation:
Formerly in the Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2006, pp. 253 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Background:

Atypical antipsychotics are not as widely used in Australian public mental health as expected from evidence of their efficacy and treatment guidelines recommendations. We assessed the reasons for this from the perspectives of patients, their carers and clinicians.

Methods:

A random sample of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia attending four public mental health clinics in Melbourne (n = 83), their carers (n = 60) and their clinicians (n = 66) completed a questionnaire on the effectiveness, acceptability and side-effects of current, previous and early antipsy-chotic medicine. Medicine use was determined from clinical records.

Results:

Patients were predominantly single middle-aged women. A significant shift over time toward atypical medicine use had occurred: 66% were currently taking atypicals; compared with early medicines, current medicines were three times more likely to be atypical (odds ratio: 2.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.48–5.88). Major discrepancies were noted in reports of medicines used between patients, carers, clinicians and clinical notes. Doctors made 61% of all recommendations for changes in previous medicines. There were few significant differences in perceived effectiveness, satisfaction and side-effects when comparing types of medicine. Health-related quality of life was associated with reported side-effects, but not with current medicine type.

Conclusions:

There is a mutual lack of information and understanding about antipsychotic medicines between patients, their carers and clinicians. Greater reinforcement of provisions and incentives for collaborative treatment planning may be beneficial. Further studies of the uptake of atypical antipsychotics and their benefits should be conducted in real-world settings.