System struggles and substitutes: A qualitative study of general practitioner and psychiatrist experiences of prescribing antipsychotics to children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are significant controversies regarding rising antipsychotic prescription trends in children and adolescents. Many pharmacoepidemiology trend studies have been published, and interpretations of these data are helpful in explaining what is happening in prescribing practices, but not why these patterns exist. There is a lack of qualitative data in this area, and the experience of prescribing antipsychotics to children and adolescents has not been adequately researched. We conducted a qualitative study using an interpretive phenomenological analysis of physicians' experiences of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents. Prescribers participated in individual interviews and a focus group. We used a staged approach for data analysis of transcriptions. In all, 11 physicians including psychiatrists and general practitioners participated in our study. We identified themes related to context, role and identity, and decision-making and filtering Struggles with health system gaps were significant leading to the use of antipsychotics as substitutes for other treatments. Physicians prescribed antipsychotics to youth for a range of indications and had significant concerns regarding adverse effects. Our results provide knowledge regarding the prescribers' experience of antipsychotics for children and adolescents. Important gaps exist within the health system that are creating opportunities for the initiation and continued use of these agents.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".