Emotional and Cognitive Effects of Long-Term Antipsychotic Medication Use: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the emotional and cognitive effects of long-term antipsychotic medication use. By understanding these impacts, the study seeks to provide a comprehensive view of the lived experiences of individuals who have been on antipsychotic medications for extended periods, highlighting both the benefits and the potential challenges. A qualitative research design was employed using a phenomenological approach to capture in-depth personal experiences. A purposive sampling method recruited 26 participants who had been on antipsychotic medications for at least five years. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in the participants' experiences. The study achieved theoretical saturation, ensuring that no new themes emerged from the data. The analysis revealed four main themes: emotional impact, cognitive effects, daily functioning, and social interaction. Participants reported significant emotional blunting, including reduced pleasure and emotional responsiveness, alongside cognitive impairments such as memory deficits and diminished attention span. Challenges in daily functioning, such as difficulties in managing routine activities and occupational tasks, were prominent. Social interactions were also affected, with participants experiencing reduced social engagement, dependency on support networks, and stigma related to medication use. These findings are consistent with previous studies, underscoring the profound impact of long-term antipsychotic use on various aspects of life. Long-term use of antipsychotic medications, while essential for managing severe psychiatric conditions, is associated with significant emotional and cognitive side effects that impact patients' quality of life. Healthcare providers should be aware of these effects and engage in regular assessments and open communication with patients to address and mitigate these challenges. Personalized treatment approaches, psychoeducation, and support groups can enhance patients' well-being and treatment adherence.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".