'So, the circle has grown' - Child Health Services nurses' experiences of giving parental interviews with nonbirthing parents.

BACKGROUND: Lately, greater focus has been given to the mental health of nonbirthing parents postpartum. However, mothers, but not nonbirthing parents, are routinely screened for postpartum depression, and until recently, nonbirthing parents have not been given the same opportunity as mothers to discuss their parental role without the other parent present. To strengthen the parental role, a separate parental interview with the nonbirthing parent began to be offered as part of the Swedish Child Health Service's (CHS) general programme. AIM: This study aimed to explore CHS nurses' experiences of performing parental interviews with nonbirthing parents. METHODS: Content analysis was used when analysing data from six research interviews, of which half were focus group interviews. In total, 11 CHS nurses were interviewed. RESULTS: Child Health Service nurses reported that although the interview with the nonbirthing parent was a positive experience and that a more family-oriented perspective was something many of them had been longing for, they could also feel that it demanded a lot from them, including things they had perhaps not previously considered. CHS nurses reported difficulties with having such close contact with both parents, and they also described feeling worried about the information that could come up in a standardised conversation and the knowledge provided. CONCLUSION: There are both possibilities and challenges in widening the responsibilities of the CHS nurse to include the nonbirthing parent by offering a postpartum interview. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides information to healthcare professionals about the importance of providing proper guidance and education when broadening the duties and responsibilities for CHS nurses to include nonbirthing parents in mental health screening. CHS nurses must be given the resources needed to deal with the challenges they encounter and sufficient time for the interviews to be possible and meaningful.

Associations between venous thromboembolism and antipsychotics. A study of the WHO database of adverse drug reactions.

BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised about the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during treatment with antipsychotics. However, to date, clozapine is the only antipsychotic agent for which recurring evidence supports an association with VTE. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the association between antipsychotic drugs, including clozapine and VTE. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data mining of the WHO database of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) using Bayesian statistics is in routine use for early alerting to possible ADRs. An information component measure was used to investigate the association between antipsychotic drugs and VTE reactions in the database. RESULTS: A total of 754 suspected cases of VTE related to treatment with antipsychotics had been reported. After excluding cases related to clozapine, 379 cases remained. A robust association was found for the second-generation antipsychotics group but not for the high-potency, first-generation antipsychotics group or the low-potency first-generation antipsychotics group. The individual compounds with statistically significant associations were olanzapine, sertindole and zuclopenthixol. A time-dependent analysis showed that the associations were positive for these drugs in 2002, 2001 and 2003, respectively. Case analyses were undertaken after excluding ten suspected duplicate reports. Of the remaining 369 cases, 91 cases were associated with olanzapine, 9 with zuclopenthixol and 6 with sertindole. CONCLUSIONS: VTE was more often reported with the antipsychotic drugs olanzapine, sertindole and zuclopenthixol than with other drugs in the WHO database. Further studies are warranted to explain this disproportional reporting. Since the associations found were based on incomplete clinical data, the results should be considered as preliminary and interpreted cautiously.

Assessing the impact of drug safety signals from the WHO database presented in 'SIGNAL': results from a questionnaire of National pharmacovigilance Centres.

INTRODUCTION: A major task for the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) is to detect early signals of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the WHO Database. The database currently contains over 2.8 million spontaneously reported ADR case reports continuously collected by National Pharmacovigilance Centres in countries participating in the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring. The database is scanned every quarter and drug-ADR combinations are filtered out using different selection criteria intended to catch potential international drug safety signals at an early stage. Summary case data are reviewed by experts on the UMC's review panel and the signals are presented to the Programme members in the restricted circulation document entitled 'SIGNAL'. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate: (i). how the signals presented in 'SIGNAL' are used; (ii). if they reach the right target group; (iii). if they are of interest and relevance to the recipients; (iv). if they are timely and; (v). if they make any difference. We were also interested in knowing the view of member countries regarding the definition of what a signal is. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent out to 71 countries participating in the WHO Programme. The recipients were asked to state what actions were taken for 26 different signal headings included in three issues of 'SIGNAL' sent out during 2001 and to rate how useful they considered these topics to be. RESULTS: Responses were received from 45 countries (63%). The Centres' average ratings of relevance, importance and usefulness on a scale 1-10 of the selected 26 signals were all above the expected average rating 5.5. The content of 'SIGNAL' in general was seen as always or often useful in 63.5% of the respondents. In 2001, 17 countries took actions on at least one signal. Actions were rarely taken without considering the signal from the UMC. All responding centres agreed on the WHO definition of a signal, but there were differences in the interpretation of what constitutes a signal. CONCLUSION: The 'SIGNAL' publication is timely, plays an important role and has a direct impact on drug safety issues handled by members of the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring.

Glucose intolerance with atypical antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and olanzapine may be associated with an increased risk of glucose intolerance and diabetes mellitus. Early studies have also suggested an association between use of conventional antipsychotics and the development of glucose intolerance. OBJECTIVE: To examine quantitatively the association between glucose intolerance including diabetes mellitus and the use of the atypical antipsychotics clozapine, olanzapine or risperidone, and to identify possible risk factors for the development of glucose intolerance during treatment with these drugs. METHODS: All reports suggestive of glucose intolerance for clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were identified in the WHO database for adverse drug reactions. In the analyses of possible risk factors for glucose intolerance all other reports of adverse drug reactions for clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were used as reference. Using the Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network method, the strengths of the associations over time between glucose intolerance and the use of these drugs were analysed. For comparison, the strengths of the associations between glucose intolerance and the use of the conventional antipsychotics haloperidol and chlorpromazine were also analysed. RESULTS: Clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were significantly associated with glucose intolerance. In contrast, chlorpromazine and haloperidol were not associated with glucose intolerance. For clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone grouped together, the following potential risk factors for glucose intolerance were identified: an underlying diabetic condition (odds ratio [OR] 10.22, 95% CI 8.20-12.73), an increase in weight (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.76-3.17), male gender (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.47), and concomitant use of valproic acid (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.61-2.40), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.99) or buspirone (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.33-3.77). CONCLUSION: Treatment with clozapine, olanzapine or risperidone appears to be associated with an increased risk of glucose intolerance.