A Qualitative Study of Experiences with and Perceptions regarding Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics: Part II—Physician Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In many countries, including Canada, a small proportion of people with psychotic disorders receive long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics (APs), despite their demonstrated effectiveness and possible advantages for improving adherence rates. Attitudes regarding LAIs among physicians may influence their prescribing practices and thereby contribute to the underuse of LAIs. Here, we report on a qualitative study of perceptions and attitudes toward LAIs among psychiatrists in Canada. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with 24 psychiatrists in 4 Canadian provinces. The focus groups inquired about experiences with and attitudes toward LAI APs. The sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were coded using a hybrid process of deductive and inductive methods. A brief pre-focus group questionnaire was administered. RESULTS: The pre-focus group questionnaires indicated that psychiatrists in our study prescribed the oral formulation of APs most of the time and had limited experience with LAIs. The focus groups yielded 4 main themes: limited knowledge about and experience with LAIs; attitudes toward LAIs (beliefs about negative perceptions of patients regarding LAIs, personal bias against needles, and consensus about some advantages of LAIs); prescribing practices around LAIs (generally seen as a last-resort option for patients with a history of nonadherence); and pragmatic barriers to using LAIs (for example, cost, storage, and staffing). CONCLUSION: Several factors may be contributing to the underuse of LAIs and the continuing stigmatized and coercive image of LAIs. Psychiatrists may benefit from better education about LAIs, and from self-examination of their attitudes to LAIs and their prescribing practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".