A qualitative study of the attitudes of patients in an early intervention service towards antipsychotic long-acting injections
A qualitative study of the attitudes of patients in an early intervention service towards antipsychotic long-acting injections
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/2045125314542098
复制
发表时间：
2014-10-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Haddad, Peter M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Das, Amlan K.;Malik, Abid;Haddad, Peter M.
目的：本研究的目的是探讨态度的主题，抗精神病药长效注射剂（莱什）的患者在早期干预team.Methods：访谈进行了有目的地抽样从EIT代表患者目前规定的抗精神病药莱什，口服抗精神病药和那些没有规定的抗精神病药物的门诊患者。根据扎根理论进行了访谈和分析。招募停止时，饱和的themes.Results：从11例患者的采访进行了分析（中位年龄24岁）。对莱什的态度被浓缩为三个关键类别：治疗联盟和精神科医生对抗精神病药物的推荐;患者对莱什的知识和信念;以及患者对莱什适当性的看法。参与者重视他们的精神科医生的建议，以最适当的抗精神病药物。对莱什的态度各不相同，但目前正在接受土地投资的人最积极。在那些没有开莱什处方的患者中，如果他们的临床医生建议，一些人愿意考虑LAI，但其他人反对这种治疗和首选表。在未开具LAI处方的患者中，缺乏对莱什作为治疗选择的认识。在目前规定LAI的组中报告了延迟提供LAI。一些参与者将口服抗精神病药、莱什和精神疾病与耻辱感联系起来。一些没有开LAI处方的患者对这种治疗的性质有误解。参与者认为莱什的优点是方便和避免忘记服用药片，而缺点包括注射疼痛，害怕针头和cooling.Conclusion：缺乏知识，误解和耻辱相关的莱什和其他治疗方案应通过为患者提供准确的信息来解决。这将有助于患者参与治疗选择，如果他们决定接受药物治疗，哪种药物和配方最适合他们的需要。临床医生应避免对患者对莱什的态度做出假设;态度各不相同，但一些未处方莱什的早期干预患者愿意考虑这种治疗。抗精神病药物处方应该来自共同的决策过程，在此过程中，临床医生和患者公开讨论不同配方和药物的利弊。在这一定性研究中确定的主题需要进一步探讨使用定量方法。
Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate attitudinal themes to antipsychotic long-acting injections (LAIs) in patients in an early intervention team (EIT).Methods: Interviews were carried out with outpatients purposively sampled from an EIT to represent patients currently prescribed antipsychotic LAIs, oral antipsychotics and those not prescribed antipsychotic medication. Interviews were conducted and analysed according to grounded theory. Recruitment stopped when saturation of themes was reached.Results: Interviews from 11 patients were analysed (median age 24 years). Attitudes to LAIs were condensed into three key categories: therapeutic alliance and the psychiatrists' recommendation of antipsychotic medication; patients' knowledge and beliefs about LAIs; and patients' views regarding the appropriateness of LAIs. Participants valued their psychiatrist's recommendation as to the most appropriate antipsychotic. Attitudes to LAIs varied but were most positive among those currently receiving a LAI. Among those not prescribed LAIs, some were open to considering a LAI if their clinician recommended it but others were opposed to such treatment and preferred tables. There was a lack of awareness of LAIs as a treatment option among those not prescribed a LAI. Delay in being offered a LAI was reported in the group currently prescribed a LAI. Several participants associated oral antipsychotics, LAIs and mental illness with stigma. Some not prescribed a LAI had misperceptions about the nature of this treatment. Participants regarded the advantages of LAIs as convenience and avoiding forgetting to take tablets, while disadvantages included injection pain, fear of needles and coercion.Conclusion: Lack of knowledge, misperceptions and stigma related to LAIs and other treatment options should be addressed by providing patients with accurate information. This will facilitate patients being involved in choices about treatment, and should they decide to accept medication, which drug and formulation is most appropriate for their needs. Clinicians should avoid making assumptions about patients' attitudes to LAIs; attitudes vary but some early intervention patients not prescribed LAIs are open to considering this treatment. Antipsychotic prescribing should result from a shared decision-making process in which clinicians and patients openly discuss the pros and cons of different formulations and drugs. The themes identified in this qualitative study require further exploration using quantitative methodology.