Assessing and Reporting the Adverse Effects of Antipsychotic Medication: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies, and Prospective, Retrospective, and Cross-Sectional Research

Objective: Adverse effects (AEs) of antipsychotic medication have important implications for patients and prescribers in terms of wellbeing, treatment adherence and quality of life. This review summarises strategies for collecting and reporting AE data across a representative literature sample to ascertain their rigour and comprehensiveness. Methods: A PsycINFO search, following PRISMA Statement guidelines, was conducted in English-language journals (1980–July 2014) using the following search string: (antipsychotic* OR neuroleptic*) AND (subjective effect OR subjective experience OR subjective response OR subjective mental alterations OR subjective tolerability OR subjective wellbeing OR patient perspective OR self-rated effects OR adverse effects OR side-effects). Of 7,825 articles, 384 were retained that reported quantified results for AEs of typical or atypical antipsychotics amongst transdiagnostic adult, adolescent, and child populations. Information extracted included: types of AEs reported; how AEs were assessed; assessment duration; assessment of the global impact of antipsychotic consumption on wellbeing; and conflict of interest due to industry sponsorship. Results: Neurological, metabolic, and sedation-related cognitive effects were reported most systematically relative to affective, anticholinergic, autonomic, cutaneous, hormonal, miscellaneous, and non-sedative cognitive effects. The impact of AEs on patient wellbeing was poorly assessed. Cross-sectional and prospective research designs yielded more comprehensive data about AE severity and prevalence than clinical or observational retrospective studies. 3 Conclusions: AE detection and classification can be improved through the use of standardised assessment instruments and consideration of subjective patient impact. Observational research can supplement information from clinical trials to improve the ecological validity of AE data.

Children with Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: Relationship between Parents and Professionals

This multi-perspectival Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study explored how people in the ‘networks of concern’ talked about how they tried to make sense of the challenging behaviours of four children with severe learning disabilities. The study also aimed to explore what affected relationships between people. The study focussed on 4 children through interviewing their mothers, their teachers and the Camhs Learning Disability team members who were working with them. Two fathers also joined part of the interviews. All interviews were conducted separately using a semi-structured approach. IPA allowed both a consideration of the participant’s lived experiences and ‘objects of concern’ and a deconstruction of the multiple contexts of people’s lives, with a particular focus on disability. The analysis rendered five themes: the importance of love and affection, the difficulties, and the differences of living with a challenging child, the importance of being able to make sense of the challenges and the value of good relationships between people. Findings were interpreted through the lens of CMM (Coordinated Management of Meaning), which facilitated a systemic deconstruction and reconstruction of the findings. The research found that making sense of the challenges was a key concern for parents. Sharing meanings were important for people’s relationships with each other, including employing diagnostic and behavioural narratives. The importance of context is also highlighted including a consideration of how societal views of disability have an influence on people in the ‘network of concern’ around the child. A range of systemic approaches, methods and techniques are suggested as one way of improving services to these children and their families. It is suggested that adopting a ‘both/and’ position is important in such work - both applying evidence based approaches and being alert to and exploring the different ways people try and make sense of the children’s challenges. Implications for practice included helping professionals be alert to their constructions and professional narratives, slowing the pace with families, staying close to the concerns of families and addressing network issues.