Patients’ Opinions of Olanzapine and Risperidone Following Long-term Treatment: Results from a Cross-sectional Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study compares the subjective responses of patients in the stable phase of schizophrenia being treated with either olanzapine or risperidone. METHODS: Several well-established, self-report inventories were used in this investigation, providing a means of assessing the impact of these medications from the perspective of the patient. RESULTS: Patients randomly sampled from a continuing care clinic had been receiving treatment with olanzapine and risperidone for an average of 140 weeks and 225 weeks, respectively. The two treatment groups report highly positive attitudes toward their medication and a relatively high overall level of well-being and health-related quality of life. All patients report high levels of satisfaction with the mental health services they receive and their general health status. Olanzapine-treated patients were more likely to report reduced social and family interaction, as well as reduced sexual behavior and less participation in active recreational and pastime activities. Patients on olanzapine also reported greater difficulty in thinking clearly and more feelings of uselessness and of being lost and alone. The occurrence of antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia and akathisia was low in both treatment groups. DISCUSSION: Results point to a high level of subjective tolerability for both olanzapine and risperidone, with few differences between the two medications on the subjective dimensions of outcome assessed in this study. Future studies should expand on the findings here, building on the limitations toward a large study including a comparison group receiving long-term treatment with typical antipsychotics. Ultimately, the goal should be the incorporation of patient-oriented assessments into routine clinical practice. This is particularly important given the relationship among satisfaction with treatment, compliance, and quality of life.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it