Suppr超能文献

当前评估患者和临床医生对氯氮平治疗观点的研究范围是什么?一项全面的范围综述。

What is the current scope of research assessing patients' and clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment? A comprehensive scoping review.

作者信息

Jakobsen Michelle Iris, Schaug Julie Perrine, Storebø Ole Jakob, Austin Stephen F, Nielsen Jimmi, Simonsen Erik

机构信息

Psychiatric Services Region Zealand East, Roskilde, Denmark

Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Kobenhavn N, Denmark.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 15;15(1):e085956. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085956.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Clozapine is continuously underused. The existing systematic reviews addressing barriers to clozapine prescribing primarily focus on clinical staff's attitudes and perceived barriers to prescribing. However, a preliminary literature search revealed additional literature on the subject not previously included in systematic reviews, including literature on patient perspectives. A scoping review is warranted to map the scope of primary studies on patients' and/or clinicians' perspectives on clozapine treatment and to identify gaps in research.

DESIGN

A scoping review was designed and reported in accordance with established guidelines for scoping reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The electronic databases Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and two grey literature databases were searched. Furthermore, citation tracking of selected studies was undertaken.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary, empirical studies reporting clinicians' and/or patients' perspectives on clozapine treatment. No limitation was set for the year of publication or type of primary study.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two researchers independently screened for studies, extracted the data and coded the content. Findings were summarised visually and narratively.

RESULTS

146 studies were included. Most studies reported on patients' or clinicians' perspectives on active clozapine treatment or on clinicians' perspectives on barriers to clozapine initiation in general. Three gaps in research were identified: (1) clozapine-eligible, yet clozapine-naïve, patients' attitudes towards clozapine commencement, (2) clinicians' reasons for clozapine withholding and perceived facilitators of clozapine treatment in specific patient-cases and (3) patient and clinician perspectives on clozapine discontinuation, continuation and rechallenge in specific patient cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on clozapine perspectives tends to repeat itself. Future studies addressing the identified gaps in evidence could provide the insights needed to optimise clozapine utilisation.

摘要

目的

氯氮平的使用一直未得到充分利用。现有的关于氯氮平处方障碍的系统评价主要关注临床工作人员的态度和感知到的处方障碍。然而,初步的文献检索发现了一些之前系统评价中未纳入的关于该主题的文献,包括患者视角的文献。有必要进行一项范围综述,以梳理关于患者和/或临床医生对氯氮平治疗观点的原始研究范围,并确定研究中的空白。

设计

根据既定的范围综述指南设计并报告了一项范围综述。

数据来源

检索了电子数据库考克兰图书馆、护理学与健康领域数据库、科学引文索引、心理学文摘数据库、医学索引数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、谷歌学术以及两个灰色文献数据库。此外,还对所选研究进行了引文追踪。

纳入标准

我们纳入了报告临床医生和/或患者对氯氮平治疗观点的原始实证研究。对发表年份或原始研究类型没有限制。

数据提取与综合

两名研究人员独立筛选研究、提取数据并对内容进行编码。研究结果以可视化和叙述的方式进行总结。

结果

纳入了146项研究。大多数研究报告了患者或临床医生对氯氮平积极治疗的观点,或临床医生对氯氮平起始障碍的总体观点。确定了三个研究空白:(1)符合氯氮平治疗条件但未使用过氯氮平的患者对开始使用氯氮平的态度;(2)在特定患者案例中,临床医生停用氯氮平的原因以及氯氮平治疗的感知促进因素;(3)在特定患者案例中,患者和临床医生对氯氮平停药、继续用药和再次用药的观点。

结论

关于氯氮平观点的研究往往存在重复。未来针对已确定的证据空白进行的研究可以提供优化氯氮平使用所需的见解。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5c4c/11751990/7c410ff84f54/bmjopen-15-1-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验