Next Article in Journal
Architecture of a Data Portal for Publishing and Delivering Open Data for Atmospheric Measurement
Previous Article in Journal
Health Behaviors of Colombian First-Semester University Students in Association with Behaviors of Close Social Ties, Living Arrangement, and Time Spent with Peers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph20075373
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan

by
Yumi Aoki
1,2,
Masahiro Takeshima
3,
Takashi Tsuboi
2,
Eiichi Katsumoto
4,
Ken Udagawa
5,
Ken Inada
6,
Koichiro Watanabe
2,
Kazuo Mishima
3 and
Yoshikazu Takaesu
2,7,*
1
Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo 104-0044, Japan
2
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo 181-8611, Japan
3
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita 010-8543, Japan
4
Katsumoto Mental Clinic, Osaka 543-0056, Japan
5
Community Mental Health & Welfare Bonding Organization, Chiba 272-003, Japan
6
Department of Psychiatry, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa 252–0374, Japan
7
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Graduate School of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa 903-0215, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(7), 5373; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075373
Submission received: 30 January 2023 / Revised: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 3 April 2023
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Although long-term use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs (BZDs) is not recommended, little is known about the stakeholders’ perceptions. This study aimed to assess and compare the perceptions of BZD use and decision making regarding its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Results: Of 104 outpatients, 92% were taking hypnotics and 96% were taking anxiolytics for ≥a year, while 49% were willing to taper hypnotic/anxiolytics within a year of starting. Most psychiatrists felt that “patient and psychiatrist make the decision together on an equal basis” compared to patients (p < 0.001), while more patients felt that “the decision is (was) made considering the psychiatrists’ opinion” compared to psychiatrists (p < 0.001). Of 543 psychiatrists, 79% reported “patients were not willing to discontinue hypnotic/anxiolytic” whereas a certain number of patients conveyed “psychiatrists did not explain in enough detail about hypnotic/anxiolytic discontinuation such as procedure (18.3%), timing (19.2%), and appropriate condition (14.4%)”. Conclusion: The results suggest that the majority of psychiatric outpatients were taking hypnotic/anxiolytics for a long time against their will. There might be a difference in perceptions toward hypnotic/anxiolytic use and decision making for its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists. Further research is necessary to fill this gap.

1. Introduction

Benzodiazepines and z-drugs (BZDs) act as positive allosteric modulators of the benzodiazepine binding sites of GABAA receptors, and have hypnotic-based sedation and anti-anxiety effects [1]. These drugs are frequently used as hypnotics or anxiolytics for those with insomnia, general anxiety disorder (GAD), and panic disorder. They are also commonly prescribed for anxiety symptoms, and not just for insomnia and anxiety spectrum disorders, which might lead to potentially inappropriate medications [2]. Moreover, BZDs are commonly prescribed for individuals with psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, to manage psychiatric symptoms, including agitation and aggression [3].
The long-term use of BZDs has disadvantages such as dependence, decline in cognitive function, and motor impairment, leading to hip fractures associated with falls [4,5,6,7]. With regard to the treatment of insomnia, clinical guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment, and medications including BZDs should only be considered if CBT-I is ineffective or unavailable [8,9]. It has also been suggested that BZDs should only be used for a short period of up to four weeks [9]. Despite these evidence-based recommendations, BZDs continue to be repeatedly prescribed worldwide.
The prescription of BZDs is higher in Japan than in Western countries, according to a 2010 United Nations report [10]. The country’s universal healthcare coverage, which provides easy access to medical care and ensures a low financial burden, may make it difficult for healthcare providers and users to be mindful not to prescribe or use unnecessary BDZ [11]. Given this situation, the Japanese government implemented medical fee reductions for BDZs use three times between 2012 and 2018 to promote appropriate use (1 April 2012, 1 April 2014, and 1 April 2018). However, according to a survey using a large-scale health insurance claims database conducted in 2021 by Takeshima et al., the mean duration of hypnotic prescriptions was 2.9 months, and 9.3% of patients were prescribed hypnotics for 12 months [11]. Moreover, an observational study using a Japan Medical Data Center dataset containing all medical fee data of health insurance service subscribers from 2015 to 2019 showed that the prescription of high-potency hypnotics (>15 mg/day diazepam) and anxiolytics (>2 mg/day flunitrazepam) generally remained unchanged [12]. These results suggest that the Japanese policies did not significantly affect long-term and high-dose BZD use. Consequently, safe tapering or discontinuation of BZD is a crucial and urgent issue in clinical settings.
In recent years, traditional patient–clinician interaction that focused on the “expert” healthcare provider informing the patient on the best course of action for a specific treatment has been replaced with patient-centered approaches, such as shared treatment decision making [13,14]. In line with this, prescribing behavior becomes more equal in concordance based on a partnership between the patient and clinician, where the reflection of the patient’s opinion on the medication regimen is fully considered during the decision-making process [15]. Patient participation in self-healthcare decisions is an ethical imperative [16] and should be recognized as a right [17]. Several countries and federal initiatives have promoted shared decision making as a desirable medical approach [18,19,20,21]. Japanese clinical guidelines for schizophrenia, depression, and social anxiety disorder also recommend implementing shared decision making in practice [22,23,24].
Patients are willing to be aware of their illness and participate in the decision-making process [25]. This tendency has no exception in psychiatry [26]. Such a patient-centered approach has the potential to reduce the overuse of treatment options, including choice of medication, which does not benefit everyone [27].
However, patient involvement in treatment decision making in clinical settings is not fully understood. The extent to which patients are involved in prescribing behaviors related to BZD use remains unclear. Considering the long-term and high-dose use of BZDs, patient involvement may not be implemented in psychiatry in Japan.
This study aimed to assess the perceptions of BZD use and decision making regarding discontinuation of BZDs between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists. Considering the long-term and high-dose use of BZDs, we hypothesized that there might be discrepancies between the outpatients and psychiatrists regarding BZD use and discontinuation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

We performed a cross-sectional, anonymous survey.
For psychiatric outpatients, we included members of the Mental Health and Welfare Bonding Organization (COMHBO), which is a nonprofit community organization comprising individuals with mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, their families, and formal/informal caregivers. An invitation was sent to individuals with mental illnesses (n = 740) on 25 October 2021 via COMHBO email listservs with a link to the as a Google Forms survey. Those who met the following criteria were invited to participate in this survey: aged 20 years or above and currently on hypnotic/anxiolytic regimen or having taken hypnotic/anxiolytic drugs in the past. A reminder email was sent after two weeks, and the survey was closed on 26 November 2021.
We included psychiatrists belonging to the Japanese Association of Neuro-Psychiatric Clinics (n = 1690). An invitation was sent to each psychiatrist on 10 January 2022 via email listservs of the association, which included a link to the as Google Forms survey. We also dispatched each psychiatrist the survey by post to enable them to respond by whichever mode they preferred. The survey was closed on 26 January 2022.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Luke’s International University (2021-604).

2.2. Questionnaire and Statistical Analysis

The variables for the questionnaire were developed based on a literature review and discussions within the steering group of this study, including psychiatrists, a psychiatric nurse, and an outpatient with mental illness. The questionnaire consisted of the following components: (1) demographics; (2) current situation related to hypnotic/anxiolytic use, such as experience, duration, and the number of hypnotic/anxiolytic medications taken; (3) perspectives of hypnotic/anxiolytic use (desirable timing of reduction after symptom improvement and permissible situation of its continuation); (4) decision making regarding the continuing/tapering of hypnotic/anxiolytic use; and (5) difficulties when attempting to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic use in the past. Regarding each variable, anxiolytics were benzodiazepines and hypnotics included both benzodiazepines and z-drugs (Supplement File S1). We then used descriptive statistics (mean and frequency) to investigate each item. The chi-square (χ2) test was used to compare outpatients’ responses to those of psychiatrists’ regarding the decisions on continuing/tapering hypnotic/anxiolytics. The results were considered statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

In total, 104 psychiatric outpatients and 543 psychiatrists completed the survey. Table 1 shows the respondents’ demographic details and other characteristics.

3.2. Outpatients’ Reported Current Situation of Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Use

Overall, 52.9% of outpatient respondents reported that they had taken both hypnotics/anxiolytics, while 30.8% had hypnotics only and 16.4% had anxiolytics only. Regarding the duration of taking hypnotics/anxiolytics, 92.0% of outpatient respondents reported that they had taken hypnotics for over a year, and 95.8% had anxiolytics for more than one year (Table 2).

3.3. Perspectives of Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Use

3.3.1. Desirable Timing of Reduction after Symptom Improvement

The most frequent response of the outpatients was “no need to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic if there are no side effects” (23.1%), followed by “immediately after symptom improvement” (19.2%), and “within 3 months after symptom improvement” (16.4%). On the other hand, 49.16% of outpatients desired to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic usage within 12 months after symptom improvement, who constitute the participants that selected one of the following four variables: “immediately” (19.2%), “within 3 months” (16.4%), “within 6 months” (3.9%), and “within 12 months(9.6%).”
The most desirable reduction timing of hypnotic/anxiolytic use for the psychiatrists after patient’s symptom improvement was “within 3 months after symptom improvement” (38.1%), followed by “within 6 months after symptom improvement” (22.5 %), and “immediately after symptom improvement” (14.2%). Overall, 85.5% of psychiatrists desired to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic use immediately within 12 months after symptom improvement as a total of four variables: “immediately” (14.2%), “within 3 months” (38.1%), “within 6 months” (22.5%), and “within 12 months” (8.3%).
In comparing the two groups, some variables included discrepancies: more psychiatrists thought that hypnotic/anxiolytic reduction should occur “within 3 months” (p < 0.001) and “within 6 months” (p < 0.001) compared to outpatients, while more outpatients thought that the reduction should occur “after 12 months passed” (p < 0.001) and “no need to reduce if there are no side effects” (p < 0.001) compared to psychiatrists (Table 3).

3.3.2. Permissible Situation of Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Continuation

The most frequent answer by both the outpatients and psychiatrists was “when I (the patient) am (is) still suffering from symptoms of insomnia or anxiety” (71.2% of outpatients, 69.8% of psychiatrists), followed by “when my (the patient’s) social functioning is disrupted” (39.4% of outpatients, 55.1% of psychiatrists) and “when I (the patient) still have (has) physical or mental problem, which led to the start of the medication administration” (31.7% of outpatients, 47.0% of psychiatrists).
In comparing the two groups, there were discrepancies in three variables: psychiatrists were more careful about “social functioning disruption” (p < 0.001) and “physical and mental problems, which led them to start to take the medication” (p < 0.001), and “the number of medications taken” (p < 0.001) compared to the patients (Table 3).

3.3.3. Decisions Making Regarding Continuing/Tapering Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Use

The ranking of the outpatients and psychiatrists was consistent, as follows: “the outpatient and psychiatrist make (made) the decision together, on an equal basis” (44.1% of outpatients, 79.6% of psychiatrists), followed by “the decision is (was) made, considering the psychiatrist’s opinion” (31.7% of outpatients, 16.6% of psychiatrists) and “the decision is (was) made, considering the patient’s opinion”(24.0% of outpatients, 3.5% of psychiatrists). In contrast, there was a significant difference between the proportion of outpatient respondents and psychiatrists for each variable. Thus, our hypothesis that there would be a discrepancy between outpatients and psychiatrists was accepted. Most psychiatrists thought that they made decisions on continuing/tapering hypnotic/anxiolytics using shared decision making on an equal basis, while the majority of outpatients believed that they made a decision considering the psychiatrist’s opinion. (Table 4).

3.4. Difficulties When Trying to Reduce Hypnotic/Anxiolytic in the Past

The most frequent difficulty of the outpatients was “I could not reduce the medication because withdrawal symptoms appeared when I tried” (24.0%), followed by “I could not reduce the medication because of worsening symptoms” (23.1%) and “I never had any particular problem regarding the medication reduction” (21.2%). Moreover, the outpatients experienced the following difficulties because of insufficient related information: “I did not know how to reduce the medication” (18.3%), “I did not know when I should reduce the medication” (19.2%), and “I did not know the situation or condition where the medication could be reduced” (14.4%).
The most frequent answer of the psychiatrists was “I could not reduce the medication because the patient was unwilling to reduce it” (78.8%), followed by “I could not reduce the medication because of worsening symptoms” (61.3%) and “I could not reduce the medication because withdrawal symptoms appeared when I tried” (37.6%).
In comparing the two groups, most items had discrepancies: more outpatients felt that they did not know “how to reduce the medication” (p < 0.001), “when I should reduce the medication” (p < 0.001), and “the situation or condition where the medication can be reduced” (p < 0.001) due to insufficient information compared to the psychiatrists. On the other hand, more psychiatrists felt that they could not reduce the medication because of “worsening symptoms” (p < 0.001) and “withdrawal symptoms appeared when tried” (p < 0.001) compared to the patients (Table 5).

4. Discussion

This is the first study to assess and compare perceptions of BZD use and decision making regarding its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists.
In this study, almost half of the psychiatric outpatients (49.1%) and the majority of the psychiatrists (85.5%) desired to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic use within 12 months of symptom improvement. In particular, psychiatrists were more willing to implement medication reduction if they thought that the reduction should occur “within 3 months” (p < 0.001) and “within 6 months” (p < 0.001) compared to outpatients. Thus, the stakeholders’ preferences were in line with the recommendations described in several clinical guidelines, which recommend that hypnotics/anxiolytics should not be prescribed for a longer time [8,9,10]. However, against their will, more than 90% of the outpatients remained on the hypnotic/anxiolytic for over 12 months. Most psychiatrists thought they could not reduce the medication because the patient was unwilling to. Moreover, a certain number of the outpatients felt that they had not been provided with sufficient information regarding hypnotic/anxiolytic usage reduction. This suggests that there should be more emphasis on sharing related information with the patients. Heather et al. reported that those with insomnia who received a letter warning about the harms of long-term use of BZD hypnotics showed larger reductions in BZD consumption than those who did not [22]. Accordingly, sharing not only the advantages, but also the disadvantages of hypnotic/anxiolytic behavior with individuals taking them might lead to successful medication reduction. In this context, shared treatment decision making is expected to be promoted in the clinical setting.
This study found discrepancies between the perspectives of outpatients and psychiatrists. Thus, our hypothesis was accepted. First, more psychiatrists perceived permissible situations for hypnotic/anxiolytic continuation in relation to social functioning and physical or mental problems, which led to the start of the medication, compared to the patients. Second, more psychiatrists found worsening psychiatric and withdrawal symptoms challenging while attempting to reduce medication compared to the patients. These results suggest that patients may not focus on symptoms and function, whereas psychiatrists do. Thus, these discrepancies mean that psychiatrists might fail to understand the patient’s preferences and values, which should be clarified through conversation with the patients in a clinical setting. Third, more psychiatrists felt that they had already implemented shared decision making, while more patients felt that the decision had been made considering the psychiatrists’ opinions. This discrepancy is crucial because SDM may not be as widely implemented as psychiatrists believe. Several studies have reported similar situations. For instance, Matthias et al. observed appointments in psychiatric outpatient services for medication management and found that psychiatrists initiated most of the decisions [28]. Verwijmeren et al. also indicated that the degree of objective patient involvement in psychiatric consultations was low [29]. Accordingly, both psychiatrists and patients must understand these situations and discrepancies, which suggests that patient participation to clarify their preferences and values regarding BZD discontinuation should be encouraged in the clinical setting.
Based on the results of this study, we propose some solutions for the current situation in Japan, where long-term and high-dose BZD use remains. First, >90% of the patients in this study had used hypnotic/anxiolytic medication for over a year. Other countries have already set limits on the duration of BZD prescriptions at four weeks [30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Therefore, it may be necessary to review our medical system, which has no duration limit and allows for long-term BZD use. Second, the results revealed that some psychiatrists still preferred long-term BZD use and believed there was no need to reduce if there were no side effects. Twenty-three percent of patients also felt no need to reduce it. For instance, the health system could introduce regular warning signs on medical records if BDZ use is longer than four weeks to promote awareness of the preferred short-term use of BDZs. Third, our results showed that most psychiatrists believed BZD use should be reduced early after symptom improvement. We must develop a system to put this positive perspective into practice. For example, communication support tools, such as patient decision aids [37], might be useful in discussing whether to continue or discontinue BZDs during consultation. Moreover, an inter-professional approach should also be considered. Other healthcare providers, such as pharmacists and nurses, could support patients in deliberating whether to continue or discontinue BDZ medication by providing related information on each treatment option neutrally [38,39]. Thus, it may be desirable to adopt such a policy of patient involvement during BZD discontinuation and reduce reimbursement as a national policy.
This study had several limitations. First, outpatients and psychiatrists were recruited from different organizations. The findings might have been different if the study had been conducted with a combination of the psychiatrist in charge and their patients. Second, outpatients in this study had mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The results may have differed with patients under primary care because mental illness is considered a risk factor for the long-term use of BZDs [40,41,42]. Third, the sample size of psychiatrists was approximately five times higher than that of participants. Fourth, psychiatrists were older than the outpatients, and male psychiatrists predominated. Differences in age and sex may lead to different perspectives and attitudes. Thus, these sociodemographic factors may have affected the study outcomes. Fifth, we did not examine patients’ characteristics, such as medical history and past and current medications. Sixth, regarding the item ‘I could not reduce the medication because the patient was unwilling to reduce it’ as difficulties while attempting to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic in the past, we did not collect the patients’ data. Thus, we could not compare the perceptions of the two parties. Nonetheless, this study is valuable in the current situation, wherein the issue of long-term BZD use remains unresolved.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed and compared the perceptions on BZD use and decision making regarding its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists. The results suggest that the majority of psychiatric outpatients were taking hypnotics/anxiolytics for a long time against their will. There might be a difference in perception toward hypnotic/anxiolytic use and decision making for its discontinuation between psychiatric outpatients and psychiatrists. Further research is required to address this gap.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph20075373/s1, Supplementary File S1.

Author Contributions

All authors (Y.A., M.T., T.T., E.K., K.U., K.I., K.W., K.M. and Y.T.) contributed towards the concept and design of the study. Y.T. contributed to the funding acquisition. Y.T., E.K. and K.U. conducted the acquisition of the data through conducting the web-based surveys. Y.A. conducted the statistical analysis, with M.T. and Y.T. contributing to the analysis. Y.A. prepared the first draft of the manuscript, with all other authors (M.T., T.T., E.K., K.U., K.I., K.W., K.M. and Y.T.) contributing towards the review and approval of the final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by research grants from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan (21GC1016).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the St. Luke’s International University (2021-604).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the respondents for participating in this study. We sincerely express our gratitude to the Community Mental Health and Welfare Bonding Organization of Japan.

Conflicts of Interest

Yumi Aoki declares no conflict of interest. Masahiro Takeshima has received speaker’s honoraria from Takeda Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Sumitomo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Viatris Pharmaceuticals Japan, Eisai, Ltd. and Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical, and research grants from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Shionogi and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (R3-21GC1016) outside the submitted work. Takashi Tsuboi received personal fees from Eisai, Kyowa Pharmaceutical Industry, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida, Otsuka, Shionogi, Sumitomo Pharma, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Viatris, and Yoshitomiyakuhin in the last three years. Eiichi Katsumoto received speaker’s honoraria from Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., K.K, Kyowa Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd., Viatris Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Yoshitomiyakuhin Corporation, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Lundbeck Japan K.K., Towa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Eli Lilly Japan K.K. in the last three years. Ken Udagawa declares no conflicts of interest. Ken Inada has received personal fees/grant support from Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mochida, Novartis, Otsuka, Shionogi, Sumitomo Pharma, and Yoshitomiyakuhin in the last three years. Koichiro Watanabe received manuscript fees or speaker’s honoraria from Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Pharmaceutical, Lundbeck Japan, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi, Sumitomo Pharma, and Takeda Pharmaceutical, and received research/grant support from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Sumitomo Pharma, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. In addition, KW is a consultant of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Pharmaceutical, Lundbeck Japan, Luye Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Kazuo Mishima has received speaker’s honoraria from EISAI Co., Ltd., Nobelpharma Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Inc. and research grants from Eisai Co., Ltd., Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., AMED (JP21 dk0307103 KM), the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (19 GC1012, 21 GC0801). Yoshikazu Takaesu received a lecture sponsorship from Takeda Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Meiji Seika Pharma, Kyowa Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and Yoshitomi and research funding from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Meiji Seika Pharma, and Eisai.

References

  1. Sigel, E.; Ernst, M. The Benzodiazepine Binding Sites of GABAA Receptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 39, 659–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Drusch, S.; Tri, T.L.; Ankri, J.; Michelon, H.; Zureik, M.; Herr, M. Potentially inappropriate medications in nursing homes and the community older adults using the French health insurance database. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2023, 32, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brunette, M.F.; Noordsy, D.L.; Xie, H.; Drake, R.E. Benzodiazepine use and abuse among patients with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Psychiatr. Serv. 2003, 54, 1395–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet 2018, 392, 1789–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Rickels, K.; Case, W.G.; Downing, R.W.; Winokur, A. Long-term diazepam therapy and clinical outcome. JAMA 1983, 250, 767–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Picton, J.D.; Marino, A.B.; Nealy, K.L. Benzodiazepine use and cognitive decline in the elderly. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2018, 75, e6–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Woolcott, J.C.; Richardson, K.J.; Wiens, M.O.; Patel, B.; Marin, J.; Khan, K.M.; Marra, C.A. Meta-analysis of the impact of 9 medication classes on falls in elderly persons. Arch. Intern. Med. 2009, 169, 1952–1960, Erratum in Arch. Intern. Med. 2010, 170, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Xing, D.; Ma, X.L.; Ma, J.X.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Chen, Y. Association between use of benzodiazepines and risk of fractures: A meta-analysis. Osteoporos. Int. 2014, 25, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schutte-Rodin, S.; Broch, L.; Buysse, D.; Dorsey, C.; Sateia, M. Clinical guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic insomnia in adults. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2008, 4, 487–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. International Narcotics Control Board UN. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on the Availability of Internationally Controlled Drugs: Ensuring Adequate Access for Medical and Scientific Purposes; INCB: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Takeshima, M.; Yoshizawa, K.; Enomoto, M.; Ogasawara, M.; Kudo, M.; Itoh, Y.; Ayabe, N.; Takaesu, Y.; Mishima, K. Effects of Japanese policies and novel hypnotics on long-term prescriptions of hypnotics. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2022. Early View. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shinfuku, N. Analysis of the trends of polypharmacy and high-dose prescriptions in Japan. Asia Pac. Psychiatry 2022, 14, e12488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Légaré, F.; Adekpedjou, R.; Stacey, D.; Turcotte, S.; Kryworuchko, J.; Graham, I.D.; Lyddiatt, A.; Politi, M.C.; Thomson, R.; Elwyn, G.; et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 7, CD006732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aoki, Y. Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis. Jpn. J. Nurs. Sci. 2020, 17, e12365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bond, C.; Blenkinsopp, A.; Raynor, D.K. Prescribing and partnership with patients. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2012, 74, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Drake, R.E.; Deegan, P.E. Shared decision making is an ethical imperative. Psychiatr. Serv. 2009, 60, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Straub, C.; Nebling, T.; Müller, H. Translating research into practice: A German sickness fund supporting patient participation. Patient Educ. Couns. 2008, 73, 544–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shafir, A.; Rosenthal, J. Shared Decision Making: Advancing Patient-Centered Care through State and Federal Implementation; National Academy for State Health Policy: Portland, ME, USA, 2012; Available online: https://www.nashp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/shared.decision.making.report.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  19. Joseph-Williams, N.; Williams, D.; Wood, F.; Lloyd, A.; Brain, K.; Thomas, N.; Prichard, A.; Goodland, A.; McGarrigle, H.; Sweetland, H.; et al. A descriptive model of shared decision making derived from routine implementation in clinical practice (‘Implement-SDM’): Qualitative study. Patient Educ. Couns. 2019, 102, 1774–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Spatz, E.S.; Krumholz, H.M.; Moulton, B.W. Prime time for shared decision making. JAMA 2017, 317, 1309–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alston, C.; Berger, Z.; Brownlee, S.; Elwyn, G.; Fowler, F.; Hall, L.K.; Montori, V.M.; Moulton, B.; Paget, L.; Haviland-Shebel, B. Shared Decision-Making Strategies for Best Care: Patient Decision Aids; National Academy of Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Available online: https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SDMforBestCare2.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  22. The Japanese Society of Mood Disorders. The Depression Treatment Guidelines, 2nd ed.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.secretariat.ne.jp/jsmd/iinkai/katsudou/data/20190724-02.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2023).
  23. The Japanese Society of Neuropsychopharmacology. The Schizophrenia Treatment Guidelines. 2022. Available online: https://www.jsnp-org.jp/csrinfo/03_2.html (accessed on 26 February 2023).
  24. The Japanese Society of Anxiety and Related Disorders & The Japanese Society of Neuropsychopharmacology, The Social Anxiety Disorder Treatment Guidelines. 2021. Available online: https://minds.jcqhc.or.jp/docs/gl_pdf/G0001312/4/Social_anxiety_disorder.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2023).
  25. Mulley, A.G.; Trimble, C.; Elwyn, G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: Patients’ preferences matter. BMJ 2012, 345, e6572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Hamann, J.; Cohen, R.; Leucht, S.; Busch, R.; Kissling, W. Do patients with schizophrenia wish to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment? Am. J. Psychiatry 2005, 162, 2382–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Heather, N.; Bowie, A.; Ashton, H.; McAvoy, B.; Spencer, I.; Brodie, J.; Giddingset, D. Randomised controlled trial of two brief interventions against long-term benzodiazepine use: Outcome of intervention. Addict. Res. Theory 2004, 12, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Matthias, M.S.; Salyers, M.P.; Rollins, A.L.; Frankel, R.M. Decision making in recovery-oriented mental health care. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 2012, 35, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Verwijmeren, D.; Grootens, K.P. Shared decision making in pharmacotherapy decisions, perceived by patients with bipolar disorder. Int. J. Bipolar. Disord. 2018, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Use of Zaleplon, Zolpidem and Zopiclone for the Short-Term Management of Insomnia. Nice Guideline (TA77). 2004. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta77/resources/guidance-on-the-use-of-zaleplonzolpidem-and-zopiclone-for-the-shortterm-management-of-insomnia-pdf2294763557317 (accessed on 26 February 2023).
  31. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Panic Disorder in Adults: Management. Nice Guideline (CG113). 2011. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG113 (accessed on 26 February 2023).
  32. Lai, L.L.; Bleidt, B.A.; Singh-Franco, D.; Elusma, C.; Huh, G. Trends in benzodiazepine prescribing under Medicare part D in USA: Outpatient settings 2005–2009. J. Pharm. Health Serv. 2015, 6, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stubbings, J.; Lau, D.T. Medicare part D research highlights and policy updates, 2013: Impact and insights. Clin. Ther. 2013, 35, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hoebert, J.M.; Souverein, P.C.; Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K.; Leufkens, H.G.M.; Van Dijk, L. Reimbursement restriction and moderate decrease in benzodiazepine use in general practice. Ann. Fam. Med. 2012, 10, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rat, C.; Penhouet, G.; Gaultier, A.; Chaslerie, A.; Pivette, J.; Nguyen, J.M.; Victorri-Vigneau, C. Did the new French pay-for performance system modify benzodiazepine prescribing practices? BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Panes, A.; Pariente, A.; Bénard-Laribière, A.; Lassalle, R.; Dureau-Pournin, C.; Lorrain, S.; Tournier, M.; Fourrier-Réglat, A. Use of benzodiazepines and z-drugs not compliant with guidelines and associated factors: A population based study. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 270, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aoki, Y.; Takaesu, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Okajima, I.; Takeshima, M.; Shimura, A.; Utsumi, T.; Kotorii, N.; Yamashita, H.; Kuriyama, K.; et al. Development and acceptability of a decision aid for chronic insomnia considering discontinuation of benzodiazepine hypnotics. Neuropsychopharmacol. Rep. 2022, 42, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jull, J.; Köpke, S.; Smith, M.; Carley, M.; Finderup, J.; Rahn, A.C.; Boland, L.; Dunn, S.; Dwyer, A.A.; Kasper, J.; et al. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 11, CD013385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhao, J.; Jull, J.; Finderup, J.; Smith, M.; Kienlin, S.M.; Rahn, A.C.; Dunn, S.; Aoki, Y.; Brown, L.; Harvey, G.; et al. Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: A realist review. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2022, 22, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, H.M.; Gerlach, L.B.; Van, T.; Yosef, M.; Conroy, D.A.; Zivin, K. Predictors of Long-Term and High-Dose Use of Zolpidem in Veterans. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2019, 80, 18m12149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Takeshima, N.; Ogawa, Y.; Hayasaka, Y.; Furukawa, T.A. Continuation and discontinuation of benzodiazepine prescriptions: A cohort study based on a large claims database in Japan. Psychiatry Res. 2016, 237, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Takano, A.; Ono, S.; Yamana, H.; Matsui, H.; Matsumoto, T.; Yasunaga, H.; Kawakami, N. Factors associated with long-term prescription of benzodiazepine: A retrospective cohort study using a health insurance database in Japan. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e029641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Demographic details and other characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic details and other characteristics of the respondents.
VariablesOutpatients n = 104Psychiatrists n = 543p Value *
Sex, n (%)
Female57 (54.8)107 (19.7)<0.001
Male46 (44.2)433 (79.7)<0.001
Other1 (1.0)3 (0.6)0.626
Age (years), n (%)
20–293 (2.9)1 (0.2)0.001
30–3922 (21.2)11 (2.0)<0.001
40–4942 (40.4)70 (12.9)<0.001
50–5931 (29.8)153(28.2)0.736
60–695 (4.8)195(35.9)<0.001
70–791 (1.0)96(17.7)<0.001
≥800 (0)15(2.8)0.086
N.A.-2 (0.4)-
Service used/affiliation, n (%)
Clinic54 (51.9)536 (98.7)<0.001
Psychiatric hospital34 (32.7)3 (0.6)<0.001
General hospital8 (7.7)2 (0.4)<0.001
University hospital8 (7.7)0 (0)<0.001
N.A.-2 (0.4)
Psychiatric diagnosis, n (%) **
Schizophrenia47 (45.2)--
Bipolar disorder25 (24.0)--
Major depressive disorder19 (18.3)--
Anxiety disorder14 (13.5)--
Developmental disorder13 (12.5)--
Insomnia12 (11.5)--
Other10 (9.6)--
Unknown3 (2.9)--
* Based on χ2 test, ** Multiple answers, N.A.: No answer.
Table
Table 2. Response of outpatients pertaining to the current situation of hypnotic/anxiolytic use.
Table 2. Response of outpatients pertaining to the current situation of hypnotic/anxiolytic use.
Variable
Experience of taking hypnotic/anxiolytic, n (%), n = 104
Hypnotic only32 (30.8)
Anxiolytic only17 (16.3)
Both hypnotic/anxiolytic55 (52.9)
Duration of taking hypnotic, n (%), n = 87
<1 month1 (1.2)
1–3 months4 (4.6)
3–6 months2 (2.3)
6–12 months0 (0)
≥12 months80 (92.0)
Duration of taking anxiolytic, n (%), n = 72
<1 month2 (2.8)
1–3 months0 (0)
3–6 months0 (0)
6–12 months1 (1.4)
≥12 months69 (95.8)
Numbers taking hypnotic, n (%), n = 87
144 (50.6)
228 (32.2)
36 (6.9)
≥49 (10.3)
Numbers taking anxiolytic, n (%), n = 72
140 (55.6)
220 (27.8)
34 (5.6)
≥ 48 (11.1)
Table
Table 3. Perspectives related to hypnotic/anxiolytic use.
Table 3. Perspectives related to hypnotic/anxiolytic use.
VariablesOutpatients
n = 104		Psychiatrists
n = 543		p Value *
Desirable timing of hypnotic/anxiolytic reduction after symptom improvement, n (%)
Immediately20 (19.2)77 (14.2)0.186
Within 3 months17 (16.4)207 (38.1)<0.001
Within 6 months4 (3.9)122 (22.5)<0.001
Within 12 months10 (9.6)45 (8.3)0.656
After 12 months passed11 (10.6)13 (2.4)<0.001
No need to reduce if there are no side effects24 (23.1)26 (4.8)<0.001
Other10 (9.6)44 (8.1)0.609
Unknown/N.A.8 (7.7)9 (1.6)<0.001
Permissible situation of hypnotic/anxiolytic continuation **
When I (the patient) am (is) still suffering from symptoms of insomnia or anxiety74 (71.2)379 (69.8)0.782
When my (the patient’s) social functioning is disrupted41 (39.4)299 (55.1)<0.001
When I (the patient) still have (has) physical or mental problem, which led to start to take the medication33 (31.7)255 (47.0)<0.001
When I (the patient) want(s) to continue the medication32 (30.8)121 (22.3)0.062
When I (the patient) am (is) not suffering from side effects of the medication29 (27.9)149 (27.4)0.926
When my (the patient’s) quality of life is worsened25 (24.0)93 (17.1)0.095
When the number of medications I (the patient) am (is) taking is low8 (7.7)157 (28.9)<0.001
Other5 (4.8)11 (2.0)0.094
Unknown/N.A.2 (1.9)3 (0.6)0.144
* Based on χ2 test, ** Multiple answers, N.A.: No answer.
Table
Table 4. Decision making regarding continuing/tapering hypnotic/anxiolytic use.
Table 4. Decision making regarding continuing/tapering hypnotic/anxiolytic use.
VariablesOutpatients
n = 104		Psychiatrists
n = 541		p Value *
The decision is (was) made, considering the patient’s opinion33 (31.7)90 (16.6)<0.001
The outpatient and psychiatrist make (made) the decision together, on an equal basis46 (44.2)432 (79.6)<0.001
The decision is (was) made, considering the psychiatrist’s opinion25 (24.0)19 (3.5)<0.001
* Based on χ2 test.
Table
Table 5. Difficulties cited while attempting to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic in the past (multiple answers).
Table 5. Difficulties cited while attempting to reduce hypnotic/anxiolytic in the past (multiple answers).
VariableOutpatients
n = 104		Psychiatrists
n = 543		p Value *
I could not reduce the medication because the patient was unwilling to reduce it-428 (78.8) -
I did not know how to reduce the medication due to insufficient related information (provided by psychiatrist)19 (18.3)8 (1.5) <0.001
I did not know when I should reduce the medication due to insufficient related information (provided by psychiatrist)20 (19.2)14 (2.6) <0.001
I did not know the situation or condition, where the medication can be reduced due to insufficient related information (provided by psychiatrist)15 (14.4)25 (4.6) <0.001
I could not reduce the medication because of worsening symptoms24 (23.1)333 (61.3) <0.001
I could not reduce the medication because withdrawal symptoms (e.g., tremors, palpitations, anxiety) appeared when I tried to reduce 25 (24.0)204 (37.6) 0.008
I never had any particular problem regarding the medication reduction22 (21.2)34 (6.3) <0.001
I never reduced the medication15 (14.4)1 (0.2) <0.001
Other11 (10.6)12 (2.2) <0.001
N.A.-34 (6.3) -
* Based on χ2 test, N.A.: No answer.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aoki, Y.; Takeshima, M.; Tsuboi, T.; Katsumoto, E.; Udagawa, K.; Inada, K.; Watanabe, K.; Mishima, K.; Takaesu, Y. A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075373

AMA Style

Aoki Y, Takeshima M, Tsuboi T, Katsumoto E, Udagawa K, Inada K, Watanabe K, Mishima K, Takaesu Y. A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(7):5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aoki, Yumi, Masahiro Takeshima, Takashi Tsuboi, Eiichi Katsumoto, Ken Udagawa, Ken Inada, Koichiro Watanabe, Kazuo Mishima, and Yoshikazu Takaesu. 2023. "A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 7: 5373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075373

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop