Search

The use of antipsychotics, particularly second generation antipsychotics, among children and adolescents has increased markedly during the past 20 years. Existing evidence gaps make this practice controversial and hinder treatment decision-making. This article describes and prioritizes future research needs regarding antipsychotic treatment in youth, focusing on within-class and between-class drug comparisons with regard to key population subgroups, efficacy and effectiveness outcomes, and adverse event outcomes. Using as a foundation a recent systematic review of antipsychotic treatment among youth, which was completed by a different Evidence-based Practice Center, we worked with a diverse group of 12 stakeholders representing researchers, funders, health care providers, patients, and families to identify and prioritize research needs. From an initial list of 16 evidence gaps, we enumerated 6 high-priority research needs: 1) long-term comparative effectiveness across all psychiatric disorders; 2) comparative long-term risks of adverse outcomes; 3) short-term risks of adverse events; 4) differentials of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety for population subgroups; 5) comparative effectiveness among those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and disruptive behavior disorders and common comorbidities; 6) comparative effectiveness among those with bipolar disorder and common comorbidities. In this article, we describe these future research needs in detail and discuss study designs that could be used to address them.

Research needs are many in the current health care environment. In this article, we describe a novel method developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center Program for prioritizing areas for future research. Using a recent- ly published systematic review as a foundation, investigators worked with a diverse group of 10 stakeholders to identify and prioritize research needs. We enumerate 13 high-priority research needs, as determined by stakeholders who represented researchers, funders, health care providers, and patients and families, and discuss considerations for specific study designs. Our findings suggest that future research on integrating mental health and primary care should focus first on a) identifying methods of integrating primary care into specialty mental health settings, b) identifying cross-cutting strategies for integration across multiple mental health diagnostic categories as opposed to a separate strategy for each diagnostic category, and c) examining the use of information technology for integrating mental and general medical health care. Other priorities for consideration include examining the economic and organizational sus- tainability of successful integration models, identifying dissemination methods for various settings, examining the business case for integration as well as methods of payment, assessing the cost-effectiveness of integration, and identifying key components of successful strategies. The importance of sustainability and economic justification for integrated care strategies was a recurring theme in discussions with the stake- holders. The ability to sustain integrated care in everyday practice remains to be proved and will depend in part on the level of incentives and sup- port provided through payment system reform, as well as the ability of practices to provide care efficiently.