“I would prefer to be prescribing less”: Perceptions on antipsychotics and challenging behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Challenging behaviour in individuals with intellectual disabilities affects quality of life and often results in antipsychotic use, despite guidelines recommending non-drug approaches as the first line. This study explores healthcare team perspectives on managing challenging behaviour, barriers to reducing antipsychotic overprescription, and possible solutions. Methods: A cross-sectional qualitative study using thematic analysis of an online team discussion and survey. Findings were used to develop a driver diagram of proposed strategies. Results: Three themes were identified: (1) varied views on current prescribing practices, with concerns about overuse and limited awareness of guidance; (2) key barriers including staffing shortages, reluctance to reduce medication, poor communication, lack of structured reviews, and absence of outcome measures; and (3) proposed solutions such as family involvement, regular reviews, improved outcome tracking, staff education, and clear care pathways. Conclusion: Addressing system-level barriers through coordinated team-based approaches may reduce reliance on antipsychotics and improve care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".