RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prescribing of psychotropic drugs (PDs) and applying restrictive measures are both frequently used in managing challenging behaviour of people with intellectual disabilities (ID), which is not always according to guidelines or good clinical practice. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the potential triangular relationship between challenging behaviour, the application of restrictive measures and PD prescription. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: In this cross-sectional study, data on challenging behaviour, PD prescription and restrictive measures were collected. We defined and compared four mutually exclusive groups of participants. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Challenging behaviour in the group in whom one or more PD were prescribed as a restrictive measures (PDRM) was more severe than in the other three groups. More severe challenging behaviour, a higher number of antipsychotics, antidepressants and anxiolytics/hypnotics prescriptions, a lower dosage, and more application of domotics as restrictive measure was shown in the PDRM compared to the group in whom PDs were prescribed according to guidelines (PDNRM). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We did not find indications for a triangular relationship of challenging behaviour, the application of restrictive measures and PD prescriptions. Future longitudinal research is needed to better understand this complex relationship and should investigate the indication and the effect of treatment. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS?: This study is a first exploration of the potential triangular relationship between symptoms of challenging behaviour, psychotropic drug (PD) prescription, and the application of restrictive measures. Prescribing PDs and applying restrictive measures are two interventions which are commonly used to manage challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities. Both have been subject of research separately in recent years. However, it is conceivable that the PD prescription in treatments for challenging behaviour could be a substitute for another form of a restrictive measure, for example a physical or mechanical restraint. For this purpose, we defined and compared four mutually exclusive groups of participants. We found no indication for this triangular relationship. On the other hand, we found the highest severity of challenging behaviour in the group who used PDs as restrictive measure next to other restrictive measures. Our results may suggest that both prescribing PDs and applying non-pharmacological restrictive measures are used simultaneously in managing challenging behaviour, are not sufficiently implemented or effective.
Asunto(s)
Discapacidad Intelectual , Problema de Conducta , Psicotrópicos , Humanos , Discapacidad Intelectual/tratamiento farmacológico , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Estudios Transversales , Masculino , Adulto , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Antipsicóticos/administración & dosificación , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Adulto Joven , Restricción Física , Ansiolíticos/uso terapéutico , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/uso terapéutico , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) often present with challenging behaviors (CBs) mostly due to inappropriate environments and mental and physical disorders. Integrative care is recommended to address CBs. However, in clinical practice, psychotropic drugs are often prescribed off-label for CBs, although the effectiveness is unclear, and side effects frequently occur. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled study to investigate the effect of integrative care provided by a collaboration of an ID specialized mental healthcare team and participants' own ID service providers' care team on reducing CBs and inappropriate off-label psychotropic drug prescriptions compared with care as usual. Participants (N = 33, aged 19-81 years) had a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability and used off-label psychotropic drugs. The primary outcome measures were the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the total dose of psychotropic drug prescriptions. At the study endpoint of 40 weeks, we found no effect of the intervention on the total ABC score and on the total dose of psychotropic drug prescriptions. In the intervention group, however, the psychotropic drug dose decreased significantly, while CBs did not change. The small sample size and not-completed interventions due to organizational problems may have affected our findings. This study illustrates the difficulties in the implementation of integrative care.