Informing the development of antipsychotic-induced weight gain management guidance: patient experiences and preferences - qualitative descriptive study.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY BJPsych Open Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1192/bjo.2024.725
Ita Fitzgerald, Erin K Crowley, Ciara Ní Dhubhlaing, Sarah O'Dwyer, Laura J Sahm
{"title":"Informing the development of antipsychotic-induced weight gain management guidance: patient experiences and preferences - qualitative descriptive study.","authors":"Ita Fitzgerald, Erin K Crowley, Ciara Ní Dhubhlaing, Sarah O'Dwyer, Laura J Sahm","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2024.725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) is a substantial contributor to high obesity rates in psychiatry. Limited management guidance exists to inform clinical practice, and individuals with experience of managing AIWG have had no or minimal input into its development. A lack of empirical research outlining patient values and preferences for management also exists. Recommendations addressing weight management in psychiatry may be distinctly susceptible to ideology and sociocultural values regarding intervention appropriateness and expectations of self-management, reinforcing the need for co-produced management guidance. This study is the first to ask: how do individuals conceptualise preferred AIWG management and how can this be realised in practice?</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>1. Explore the management experiences of individuals with unwanted AIWG. 2. Elicit their values and preferences regarding preferred management.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Qualitative descriptive methodology informed study design. A total of 17 participants took part in semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was undertaken using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reported that clinicians largely overestimated AIWG manageability using dietary and lifestyle changes. They also reported difficulties accessing alternative management interventions, including a change in antipsychotic and/or pharmacological adjuncts. Participants reported current management guidance is oversimplified, lacks the specificity and scope required, and endorses a 'one-size-fits-all' management approach to an extensively heterogenous side-effect. Participants expressed a preference for collaborative AIWG management and guidance that prioritises early intervention using the range of evidence-based management interventions, tailored according to AIWG risk, participant ability and participant preference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Integration of this research into guideline development will help ensure recommendations are relevant and applicable, and that individual preferences are represented.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"10 5","pages":"e136"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2024.725","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) is a substantial contributor to high obesity rates in psychiatry. Limited management guidance exists to inform clinical practice, and individuals with experience of managing AIWG have had no or minimal input into its development. A lack of empirical research outlining patient values and preferences for management also exists. Recommendations addressing weight management in psychiatry may be distinctly susceptible to ideology and sociocultural values regarding intervention appropriateness and expectations of self-management, reinforcing the need for co-produced management guidance. This study is the first to ask: how do individuals conceptualise preferred AIWG management and how can this be realised in practice?

Aims: 1. Explore the management experiences of individuals with unwanted AIWG. 2. Elicit their values and preferences regarding preferred management.

Method: Qualitative descriptive methodology informed study design. A total of 17 participants took part in semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was undertaken using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Participants reported that clinicians largely overestimated AIWG manageability using dietary and lifestyle changes. They also reported difficulties accessing alternative management interventions, including a change in antipsychotic and/or pharmacological adjuncts. Participants reported current management guidance is oversimplified, lacks the specificity and scope required, and endorses a 'one-size-fits-all' management approach to an extensively heterogenous side-effect. Participants expressed a preference for collaborative AIWG management and guidance that prioritises early intervention using the range of evidence-based management interventions, tailored according to AIWG risk, participant ability and participant preference.

Conclusion: Integration of this research into guideline development will help ensure recommendations are relevant and applicable, and that individual preferences are represented.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为制定抗精神病药物引起的体重增加管理指南提供依据:患者的经历和偏好--定性描述性研究。
背景:抗精神病药物诱发的体重增加(AIWG)是导致精神病患者肥胖率居高不下的重要原因。用于指导临床实践的管理指南十分有限,具有管理 AIWG 经验的个人对指南的制定没有参与或参与甚少。此外,还缺乏概述患者价值观和管理偏好的实证研究。针对精神病学体重管理的建议可能会明显受到意识形态和社会文化价值观的影响,这些价值观涉及干预措施的适当性和自我管理的期望,因此更需要共同制定管理指南。本研究首次提出了以下问题:个人如何看待其偏好的 AIWG 管理,以及如何在实践中实现这一目标? 目的:1. 探索不想要 AIWG 的个人的管理经验。2.2. 了解他们对首选管理方法的价值观和偏好:方法:采用定性描述方法进行研究设计。共有 17 名参与者参加了半结构化访谈。数据分析采用反思性主题分析法:结果:参与者报告称,临床医生在很大程度上高估了通过改变饮食和生活方式来控制 AIWG 的可能性。他们还报告称很难获得其他管理干预措施,包括改变抗精神病药物和/或药物辅助治疗。与会者报告称,目前的管理指南过于简化,缺乏所需的特异性和范围,并且认可了一种 "放之四海而皆准 "的管理方法来应对广泛的异质性副作用。参与者表示更倾向于由人工智能工作组进行合作管理,并根据人工智能工作组的风险、参与者的能力和参与者的偏好,优先使用一系列循证管理干预措施进行早期干预:将这项研究纳入指南制定工作将有助于确保建议的相关性和适用性,并体现个人偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
期刊最新文献
Comparing measurements of lithium treatment efficacy in people with bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis - CORRIGENDUM. Factors associated with mental health outcomes in a Muslim community following the Christchurch terrorist attack. Breaking barriers in the career development of women in academic psychiatry. Cognitive, adaptive and daily life functioning in adults with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Depression in childhood to early adulthood and respiratory health in early adulthood.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1