Tromans, Samuel J., Deb, Shoumitro, Mahmood, Hassan, Triantafyllopoulou, Paraskevi, Jamieson, Tony, Gookey, Gill, Bassett, Paul, Malak, Zayed, Sawhney, Indermeet, Korb, Laura, and others. (2025) Psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists’ attitudes to psychotropic optimisation for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: cross-sectional comparison study. BJPsych Open, 11 (6). Article Number e249. E-ISSN 2056-4724. (doi:10.1192/bjo.2025.10875) (KAR id:111744)
|
PDF
Publisher pdf
Language: English
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
|
|
|
Download this file (PDF/403kB) |
Preview |
| Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
| Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10875 |
|
Abstract
Background: Off-licence psychotropic use in people with intellectual disability and/or autism, in the absence of psychiatric illness, is a major public health concern in England.
Aims: To ascertain and compare views of psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism on psychotropic medication optimisation for this population.
Method: A cross-sectional survey of 13 questions was disseminated online among psychiatrists and other health professionals working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism across England, using a non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling. The questionnaire covered demographic characteristics, perceived barriers/benefits of psychotropic optimisation (including ethnicity) and views on implementation of a national medicine optimisation programme. Quantitative analysis used chi-squared, Mann–Whitney and unpaired t-tests, with significance taken as P < 0.05. Thematic analysis of free-text responses was undertaken with Braun and Clarke’s methodology.
Results: Of 219 respondents, significant differences in attitudes to most issues emerged between psychiatrists (n = 66) and non-psychiatrists (n = 149). Psychiatrists had less optimism of a successful national medication optimisation programme if commissioned, or achieving 50% reduction in psychotropic overprescribing and inappropriate psychotropic prescribing generally. Perceived barriers to reducing overmedication differed significantly between the psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists, Thematic analysis identified five themes (system issues, resources, medication challenges, family and carers, and training and alternatives/structure).
Conclusions: This is the first study to highlight important differences between psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists’ attitudes to psychotropic optimisation despite respondents overall being broadly supportive of its need. A major finding is the hitherto unquantified concerns of patient ethnicity and its impact on psychotropic optimisation principles.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| DOI/Identification number: | 10.1192/bjo.2025.10875 |
| Uncontrolled keywords: | antipsychotic; psychotropic; Intellectual disability; autism; psychiatry |
| Subjects: | H Social Sciences |
| Institutional Unit: | Schools > School of Psychology > Tizard Centre |
| Former Institutional Unit: |
There are no former institutional units.
|
| Funders: | University of Kent (https://ror.org/00xkeyj56) |
| SWORD Depositor: | JISC Publications Router |
| Depositing User: | JISC Publications Router |
| Date Deposited: | 23 Oct 2025 15:05 UTC |
| Last Modified: | 24 Oct 2025 08:11 UTC |
| Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/111744 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0946-5088
Altmetric
Altmetric