An ethics analysis of antipsychotic dose reduction and discontinuation: Principles for supporting recovery from psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence and practice of antipsychotic dose reduction from the lens of biomedical ethics (specifically principlism) to support evidence-based practice and patient choice and self-determination. METHODS: An overview of the evidence from randomized controlled trials of antipsychotic dose reduction versus maintenance is presented. This is followed by a theoretical examination of the four key biomedical ethical principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice and how they apply in the case of antipsychotic dose reduction. RESULTS: Existing clinical trial research is dominated by relapse as the primary outcome, with dose reduction associated with a higher risk of relapse than maintenance. Few studies have measured other patient-centered outcomes but have shown preliminary evidence for superior cognitive functioning, lower negative symptoms, and better functioning following dose reduction. Respect for autonomy is a cornerstone of psychiatric rehabilitation, and this includes the right of people to choose to reduce or discontinue antipsychotic medication. Reduced capacity for treatment decision making can be supported. Autonomy and appraisal of nonmaleficence and beneficence associated with dose reduction can be facilitated through shared or supported decision making. Clinicians should continue to strive for justice through the fair allocation of resources to support all people who request antipsychotic dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinicians have a responsibility to balance the four core ethical principles to the best of their ability when supporting a person in their recovery journey. Exploring, trialing, and supporting antipsychotic dose reduction may be part of this process if that is the patient's choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Program logic of a service collaboration to support parents with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the Steps to Confident Parenting (SCP) program, developed by an Australian family service consortium. The SCP integrates home-based and case-management services to enhance the skills of parents with a diagnosed or suspected intellectual disability/cognitive impairment and to prevent child protection interventions. METHOD: 'Program explication' methodology documented the components/activities, and underpinning evidence for this practitioner designed service through interviews with nine agency staff. A literature review evaluated evidence for the implicit program benefit theory. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The SCP comprised five logically consistent components-Targeted Referral, Assessments, Initial Consultation, Program Delivery, Closure and Follow-up. Components generally had 'some' supportive evidence, however there was a 'lack of' evidence for Closure and Follow-up. In the context of a partnership seeking to build the evidence for the SCP, it was recommended that a protocol for a randomised trial evaluation with longer term follow-up be drafted by the consortia.

Validating cognitive screening in young people with first-episode psychosis: The CogScreen protocol.

AIM: Cognitive impairments are a core feature of first-episode psychosis (FEP) and one of the strongest predictors of long-term psychosocial functioning. Cognition should be assessed and treated as part of routine clinical care for FEP. Cognitive screening offers the opportunity to rapidly identify and triage those in most need of cognitive support. However, there are currently no validated screening measures for young people with FEP. CogScreen is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study which aims to evaluate the classification accuracy (relative to a neuropsychological assessment as a reference standard), test-retest reliability and acceptability of two cognitive screening tools in young people with FEP. METHODS: Participants will be 350 young people (aged 12-25) attending primary and specialist FEP treatment centres in three large metropolitan cities (Adelaide, Sydney, and Melbourne) in Australia. All participants will complete a cross-sectional assessment over two sessions including two cognitive screening tools (Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry and Montreal Cognitive Assessment), a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery, psychiatric and neurodevelopmental assessments, and other supplementary clinical measures. To determine the test-retest reliability of the cognitive screening tools, a subset of 120 participants will repeat the screening measures two weeks later. RESULTS: The protocol, rationale, and hypotheses for CogScreen are presented. CONCLUSIONS: CogScreen will provide empirical evidence for the validity and reliability of two cognitive screening tools when compared to a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. The screening measures may later be incorporated into clinical practice to assist with rapid identification and treatment of cognitive deficits commonly experienced by young people with FEP.