4.6 Review

Differences in the prescribing of medication for physical disorders in individuals with v. without mental illness: meta-analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 201, 期 6, 页码 435-443

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.094532

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There is some concern that patients with mental illness may be in receipt of inferior medical care, including prescribed medication for medical conditions. Aims We aimed to quantify possible differences in the prescription of medication for medical conditions in those with v. without mental illness. Method Systematic review and random effects meta-analysis with a minimum of three independent studies to warrant pooling by drug class. Results We found 61 comparative analyses (from 23 publications) relating to the prescription of 12 classes of medication for cardiovascular health, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis and HIV in a total sample of 1 931 509 people. In those with severe mental illness the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for an equitable prescription was 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.86), with lower than expected prescriptions for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACE/ARBs), beta-blockers and statins. People with affective disorder had an odds ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.55-1.02) but this was not significant. Individuals with a history of other (miscellaneous) mental illness had an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.98) of comparable medication with lower receipt of ACE/ARBs but not highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) medication. Results were significant in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses. Conclusions Individuals with severe mental illness (including schizophrenia) appear to be prescribed significantly lower quantities of several common medications for medical disorders, largely for cardiovascular indications, although further work is required to clarify to what extent this is because of prescriber intent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据