AIMS: Almost no data are available on whether patients and doctors have similar or dissimilar opinions on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects. The aim of this survey is to compare doctors' versus patients' perspective on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects in a sample of patients under the care of the South-Verona mental health services. METHODS: All patients exposed to antipsychotic drugs during a census period of 6 months were identified. For each included subject, socio-demographic, clinical and treatment data were extracted. Patients' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects was measured by means of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS). The LUNSERS was similarly employed to measure doctors' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects. RESULTS: During the recruitment period, 243 patients taking antipsychotic drugs were enrolled. The correlation between the total LUNSERS score reported by patients and doctors was very low (correlation coefficient 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.30). On average, patients perceived more adverse effects and with a significant higher distress than doctors. Multivariate analyses found no factors simultaneously associated with both patient and doctor ratings of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that doctors, researchers and health care providers should increasingly consider patient and doctor perspectives as two complementary dimensions that may provide different insights in the evaluation of antipsychotic drugs. Integrating different points of view may represent a way to develop a better therapeutic alliance that might decrease the likelihood of nonadherence.
AIMS: Almost no data are available on whether patients and doctors have similar or dissimilar opinions on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects. The aim of this survey is to compare doctors' versus patients' perspective on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects in a sample of patients under the care of the South-Verona mental health services. METHODS: All patients exposed to antipsychotic drugs during a census period of 6 months were identified. For each included subject, socio-demographic, clinical and treatment data were extracted. Patients' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects was measured by means of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS). The LUNSERS was similarly employed to measure doctors' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects. RESULTS: During the recruitment period, 243 patients taking antipsychotic drugs were enrolled. The correlation between the total LUNSERS score reported by patients and doctors was very low (correlation coefficient 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.30). On average, patients perceived more adverse effects and with a significant higher distress than doctors. Multivariate analyses found no factors simultaneously associated with both patient and doctor ratings of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that doctors, researchers and health care providers should increasingly consider patient and doctor perspectives as two complementary dimensions that may provide different insights in the evaluation of antipsychotic drugs. Integrating different points of view may represent a way to develop a better therapeutic alliance that might decrease the likelihood of nonadherence.
Authors: Jennifer C Day; Richard P Bentall; Chris Roberts; Fiona Randall; Anne Rogers; Dinah Cattell; David Healy; Pam Rae; Cheryl Power Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-07
Authors: Sue Jordan; Timothy Banner; Marie Gabe-Walters; Jane M Mikhail; Jeff Round; Sherrill Snelgrove; Mel Storey; Douglas Wilson; David Hughes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sue Jordan; Marie Gabe; Louise Newson; Sherrill Snelgrove; Gerwyn Panes; Aldo Picek; Ian T Russell; Michael Dennis Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2014-02-23