MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283750090 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057585

Antipsychotic prescribing practices and patient, family member and healthcare professional perceptions of antipsychotic prescribing in acute care settings: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4283750090 on OpenAlexaff
Natalia Jaworska, Stephana J. Moss, Karla D. Krewulak, Zara Stelfox, Daniel J. Niven, Zahinoor Ismail, Lisa Burry, Kirsten M. Fiest

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeprescribingCINAHLAntipsychoticPsycINFOHealth careMEDLINEAcute careMedical prescriptionPolypharmacyPsychiatryFamily medicineNursingPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed off-label in acutely ill patients for non-psychiatric clinical indications such as delirium or insomnia. New prescription initiation of antipsychotics in acute care settings increases the proportion of patients discharged home on antipsychotics without approved clinical indication. Long-term use of antipsychotics is associated with increased risk of sudden cardiac death, falls and cognitive impairment. An understanding of acute care off-label antipsychotic prescribing practices and healthcare professional, patient and family perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing is necessary to facilitate in-hospital deprescribing initiatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We present the protocol for a scoping review following the methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search five databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to 3 July 2021 (ie, planned search date). We will include both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies to identify antipsychotic prescribing practices, and to describe healthcare professional, patient and family perceptions towards antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing in the acute care setting. Protocols, systematic and scoping reviews will be excluded. Two reviewers will calibrate and perform study screening and data abstraction for quantitative and qualitative outcomes of eligible studies. Quantitative outcomes will include study identifiers, demographics and descriptive statistics of antipsychotic prescribing practices. Qualitative synthesis describing perceptions on antipsychotic prescribing practices will include deductive thematic analysis with mapping of themes to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, a 14-domain behaviour and behaviour change framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required for this study as only data from published studies in which informed consent was obtained by primary investigators will be retrieved and analysed. The results of this scoping review will inform integrated knowledge translation initiatives aimed at in-hospital antipsychotic medication deprescribing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0290.025
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0100.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.010

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→