Findings from an expert focus group on psychotropic medication deprescribing practices for children and youth with complex needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Psychotropic medication can be effective at stabilizing emotional and behavioural disturbances associated with physiological processes in children and youth. When medication benefits, indication or adverse effects are queried, deprescribing should be considered. Current guidelines for deprescribing are mainly for adults/elderly and largely theoretical, not practical, especially for polypharmacy. Methods: At a tertiary center for children and youth with complex emotional and behavioural needs, physicians on staff have expertise in conducting assessments of medication efficacy, side effect burden, and safety concerns. Deprescribing is routinely undertaken in the context of inpatient and outpatient services in partnership with children/youth and their families. A qualitative initiative leveraged the specialized deprescribing expertise of eight physicians (six psychiatrists and two pediatricians). Results: Emerging themes were medication review, timing, a stepwise approach, and setting conditions (inpatient and outpatient), with recurring subcategories of patient/family engagement as well as the underlying importance of continuity of care with psychosocial/behavioural supports. Discussion: The findings from this expert focus group serve as a step towards supporting prescribing clinicians in mindful deprescribing when medications are no longer in the best interest of young patients.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".