MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992709887

"I Didn't Just Cross a Line I Tripped over an Edge": Experiences of Serious Adverse Effects with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Use

2008· article· en· W2992709887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Jane Liebert, Nicola Gavey

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand journal of psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectPsychologySerotonin reuptake inhibitorAkathisiaAggressionPsychiatryHarmFluoxetineReuptake inhibitorMedicineSocial psychologyAntidepressantSerotoninPharmacologyAnxietyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may elicit suicidal and/or aggressive thoughts and behaviours has been circulating for nearly thirty years. Despite a growing body of knowledge around these serious adverse effects, however, they continue to be surrounded by controversy. In particular they are subject to (arguable) counter-arguments that any risks from using the drugs are outweighed by benefits and/or more attributable to a person's 'underlying disease'. Moreover assessments of risks often use rates of completed suicides as the ultimate measure. In this paper we draw on people's own accounts of their experiences of serious adverse effects associated with SSRI use. In depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with nine people who had either used SSRIs themselves or had witnessed the use of SSRIs by a close family member. We present four themes identified across the interviews relating to adverse effects from SSRIs: experiences of akathisia, aggression and suicidality; 'out of character' behaviour; harm to relationships; and accounts of responses from the medical profession. Participants reported that the experience of adverse effects had marked impacts on general wellbeing, identities and relationships. These accounts cast doubt on notions that serious adverse effects associated with SSRI use may stem from an underlying condition and/or be outweighed by benefits from SSRI use. In addition they offer a persuasive and poignant plea to further consider non-fatal adverse effects and their consequences in assessing the risks of these drugs. ********** Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants have become the subject of considerable controversy in recent years. Not only have serious questions been raised about the efficacy of these drugs (e.g., Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2005) but evidence has long been mounting of an association between SSRIs and suicide. This evidence which has arisen from a range of sources including case reports (e.g., Teicher, Glod, & Cole, 1990), recta- and re-analyses of clinical trials (e.g., Kraus, 2006), legal cases (e.g., Healy, 2004a), epidemiological studies (e.g., Donovan et al., 2000) and primary care databases (e.g., Martinez et al., 2005)--has lead critics to urge far greater caution around the use of these drugs, particularly at the point of starting, stopping or changing dose (Healy, 2004a). According to Healy (2006) the current best estimate for the likely risk of suicide on SSRIs over placebo is 2.6 (p. 93). Links between SSRIs and a number of other serious adverse (and withdrawal) effects--such as aggression, akathisia, mania and the wider realm of suicidality--have also been postulated (e.g., Breggin, 2003; Glenmullen, 2000; Healy, 2004a; Medawar, Herxheimer, Bell & Jofre, 2002; Whitaker, 2005), although the research evidence is less well established (see for instance Healy, Herxheimer, & Menkes, 2006, regarding the links between SSRIs and violence). Although pharmaceutical regulatory bodies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have responded to this evidence of serious potential adverse effects by issuing warnings about the risks associated with SSRIs (e.g., ADRAC, 2004; EMEA, 2005; FDA, 2005; Health Canada, 2004; Medsafe, 2004; MHRA, 2003), proponents of the drugs nevertheless continue to argue that their benefits outweigh the risks. For instance, it has been claimed that SSRIs are associated with a decrease in the rate of suicide at the population level (e.g., Khan, Khan, Leventhal, & Brown, 2001), although more recently others have countered that there is no evidence for any causal relationship between increasing use of SSRIs and declining rates of suicide (e.g., Safer & Zito, 2007). As well as this debate about whether SSRIs 'on balance' may help more people than they hurt, the currency in which such cost-benefit analyses are calculated is often restricted to measures of completed suicide. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand journal of psychologySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207