Hughes Phillip M, Niznik Joshua D, McGrath Robert E, Tak Casey R, Christian Robert B, Sleath Betsy L, Thomas Kathleen C
Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
School of Psychology and Counseling, Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Am Psychol. 2024 Jul 25. doi: 10.1037/amp0001373.
This study aimed to compare patient outcomes between prescribing psychologists, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians (PCPs). Private insurance claims (2005-2021; = 307,478) were used to conduct an active comparator, new user longitudinal cohort study developed using target trial emulation. Inverse propensity for treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences in a range of sociodemographic, clinical, and contextual patient factors. Differences in the 1-year rate of health care visits for adverse drug events (ADEs), psychiatric emergency department (ED) utilization, medication adherence, and psychotropic polypharmacy were identified between prescribing psychologists and the other provider types using doubly robust Cox proportional hazards models. Compared to patients of psychiatrists, patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of ADEs (95% CI [0.60, 0.96]), a 20% lower rate of psychotropic polypharmacy (95% CI [0.74, 0.86]), and similar rates of psychiatric ED utilization and medication nonadherence. Compared to patients of PCPs, patients of prescribing psychologists had 138% higher rates of psychiatric ED utilization (95% CI [1.67, 3.39]), 175% higher rates of psychotropic polypharmacy (95% CI [2.53, 2.99]), 28% lower rates of medication nonadherence (95% CI [0.66, 0.78]), and similar rates of ADEs. Using robust pharmacoepidemiological methods, we noted that among mental health specialists, prescribing psychologists appear to be as safe and efficacious as psychiatrists in a large sample of privately insured patients. Notable differences in safety and efficacy when compared to PCPs may be attributable to differences between specialty and primary care. Future research on prescribing psychologists should move toward studies of care quality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
本研究旨在比较开具处方的心理学家、精神科医生和初级保健医生(PCP)之间的患者治疗结果。利用私人保险理赔数据(2005 - 2021年;n = 307,478)开展了一项活性对照、新用户纵向队列研究,该研究采用目标试验模拟方法进行。使用治疗权重的逆倾向得分来调整一系列社会人口统计学、临床和背景患者因素的基线差异。使用双重稳健的Cox比例风险模型,确定开具处方的心理学家与其他医疗服务提供者类型之间在药物不良事件(ADE)的1年医疗就诊率、精神科急诊(ED)利用率、药物依从性和精神药物联合使用方面的差异。与精神科医生的患者相比,开具处方的心理学家的患者发生ADE的比率低24%(95%置信区间[0.60, 0.96]),精神药物联合使用的比率低20%(95%置信区间[0.74, 0.86]),精神科ED利用率和药物不依从率相似。与初级保健医生的患者相比,开具处方的心理学家的患者精神科ED利用率高138%(95%置信区间[1.67, 3.39]),精神药物联合使用的比率高175%(95%置信区间[2.53, 2.99]),药物不依从率低28%(95%置信区间[0.66, 0.78]),ADE发生率相似。使用稳健的药物流行病学方法,我们注意到在心理健康专家中,在大量私人保险患者样本中,开具处方的心理学家似乎与精神科医生一样安全有效。与初级保健医生相比,在安全性和有效性方面的显著差异可能归因于专科医疗和初级保健之间的差异。未来关于开具处方的心理学家的研究应转向护理质量研究。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2024美国心理学会,保留所有权利)