A Qualitative Study of Experiences with and Perceptions regarding Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics: Part I—Patient Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the well-acknowledged problem of poor adherence to antipsychotic (AP) medication, long-acting injectables (LAIs) that could improve adherence are underused in Canada. Attitudes concerning LAIs among patients and psychiatrists may contribute to this underuse. Our objective was to investigate perceptions of and attitudes toward LAIs among patients in Canada. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with 34 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum psychoses 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 combination of deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: awareness of and knowledge about LAIs; perceptions about LAIs; cost and convenience considerations; and issues arising from the coercive context under which LAIs were often prescribed. Nine patients had never heard about LAIs, and some others reported not having understood what was discussed with them regarding LAIs. Patients had typically heard about LAIs in either a context of coercion or of medication nonadherence. Patients had positive and negative perceptions concerning LAIs. The positive perceptions centred on relapse prevention and reduced effort in ensuring adherence, and the negative perceptions centred on financial costs and the inconvenience of appointments to receive injections. CONCLUSION: To enhance LAI usage, some of the issues that need to be addressed are the inadequacy of information given to patients, the element of coercion involved in LAI introduction, the pragmatic barriers to LAI uptake by patients, and negative subjective perceptions about LAIs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".