Skip to main content
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • Blog
  • Newsroom
  • Find It Fast
  • Help Center
  • Subscribe
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

PCORI

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Search form

  • About Us
    Close mega-menu

    About Us

    • Our Programs
    • Governance
    • Financials and Reports
    • Procurement Opportunities
    • Our Staff
    • Our Vision & Mission
    • Contact Us

    Fact Sheets: Learn More About PCORI

    Download fact sheets about out work, the research we fund, and our programs and initiatives.

    Find It Fast

    Browse through an alphabetical list of frequently accessed and searched terms for information and resources.

    Subscribe to PCORI Email Alerts

    Sign up for weekly emails to stay current on the latest results of our funded projects, and more.

  • Research & Results
    Close mega-menu

    Research & Results

    • Explore Our Portfolio
    • Research Fundamentals
    • Research Results Highlights
    • Putting Evidence to Work
    • Peer Review
    • Evidence Synthesis
    • About Our Research

    Evidence Updates from PCORI-Funded Studies

    These updates capture highlights of findings from systematic reviews and our funded research studies.

    Journal Articles About Our Funded Research

    Browse through a collection of journal publications that provides insights into PCORI-funded work.

    Explore Our Portfolio of Funded Projects

    Find out about projects based on the health conditions they focus on, the state they are in, and if they have results.

  • Topics
    Close mega-menu

    Topics

    • Addressing Disparities
    • Arthritis
    • Asthma
    • Cancer
    • Cardiovascular Disease
    • Children's Health
    • Community Health Workers
    • COVID-19
    • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment
    • Diabetes
    • Kidney Disease
    • Medicaid
    • Men's Health
    • Mental and Behavioral Health
    • Minority Mental Health
    • Multiple Chronic Conditions
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Obesity
    • Older Adults' Health
    • Pain Care and Opioids
    • Rare Diseases
    • Rural Health
    • Shared Decision Making
    • Telehealth
    • Transitional Care
    • Veterans Health
    • Women's Health

    Featured Topic: Women's Health

    Learn more about the projects we support on conditions that specifically or more often affect women.

  • Engagement
    Close mega-menu

    Engagement

    • The Value of Engagement
    • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
    • Influencing the Culture of Research
    • Engagement Awards
    • Engagement Resources
    • Engage with Us

    Engagement Tools and Resources for Research

    This searchable peer-to-peer repository includes resources that can inform future work in patient-centered outcomes research.

    Explore Engagement in Health Literature

    This tool enables searching for published articles about engagement in health research.

    Research Fundamentals: A New On-Demand Training

    It enables those new to health research or patient-centered research to learn more about the research process.

  • Funding Opportunities
    Close mega-menu

    Funding Opportunities

    • What & Who We Fund
    • What You Need to Know to Apply
    • Applicant Training
    • Merit Review
    • Awardee Resources
    • Help Center

    PCORI Funding Opportunities

    View and learn about the newly opened funding announcements and the upcoming PFAs in 2021.

    Tips for Submitting a Responsive LOI

    Find out what PCORI looks for in a letter of intent (LOI) along with other helpful tips.

    PCORI Awardee Resources

    These resources can help awardees in complying with the terms and conditions of their contract.

  • Meetings & Events
    Close mega-menu

    Meetings & Events

    • Upcoming
    • Past Events

    PCORI 2021 and Beyond

    During this webinar, PCORI leaders shared ways to get involved in PCOR, improvements to our funding opportunities, and more.

    Confronting COVID-19: A Webinar Series

    Learn more about the series and access recordings and summary reports of all six sessions.

    2020 PCORI Annual Meeting

    Watch recordings of all sessions, and view titles and descriptions of the posters presented at the virtual meeting.

You are here

  • Research & Results
  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Examining the Effects of Four State ...

This project has results

Examining the Effects of Four State Policies to Monitor the Use of Antipsychotics in Children in Foster Care

Sign Up for Updates to This Study  

Results Summary and Professional Abstract

Results Summary
Download Summary

Results Summary

What was the research about?

Doctors sometimes give children medicines to treat mood and behavior problems. These medicines include antipsychotics, which help treat conditions like schizophrenia. Antipsychotics are also sometimes used to treat more common conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. But these medicines can have long-term risks like heart attack and diabetes. Children in foster care get these medicines more often than other children.

States oversee the care of youth in foster care, including what medicines they get. In the study, the research team looked at policies for managing antipsychotic use in four states:

  • In some Ohio counties, doctors got a guide for prescribing antipsychotics. The guide also suggested how to manage these medicines so children would not get more than one antipsychotic at once.
  • In some Wisconsin counties, a policy improved coordination of medical and mental health care.
  • In Washington, the state required doctors to get permission from child psychiatrists to prescribe antipsychotics.
  • In Texas, doctors got guidance on prescribing antipsychotics. Texas also suggested that doctors test for the side effects of antipsychotics.

The research team looked at how the state programs affected how and when children in foster care got antipsychotics.

What were the results?

Overall, the policies helped improve the way antipsychotics were used for children in foster care.

Ohio: Compared with children not in foster care, children in foster care were less likely to get multiple antipsychotics.

Wisconsin: Rates of blood testing for side effects of antipsychotics for children in foster care in participating counties went up compared with children in other counties.

Washington: Rates of antipsychotic use went down more in children in foster care than in children not in foster care.

Texas: Compared with adopted children, children in foster care

  • Were less likely to get antipsychotics when they had conditions like ADHD and depression
  • Got blood tests to check for side effects at about the same rates

Also, children in foster care on antipsychotics in Texas had greater increases in blood testing than children in Ohio, which had no testing guidance.

Who was in the study?

The study included health records for children in foster care in four states. All children had Medicaid and a mental health condition that doctors sometimes treated with antipsychotics.

What did the research team do?

The research team examined four state policies that monitor how children in foster care get antipsychotics. Using Medicaid health records, the team identified which medicines children in foster care got. The team also looked at whether children in Texas and Wisconsin had blood tests for antipsychotics’ side effects.

Adults who were once in those states’ foster care systems, foster caregivers, social workers, doctors, and pharmacists helped plan the study.

What were the limits of the study?

Results may differ for other states and policies. Findings may have differed if the research team used interviews or surveys instead of health records.

Future research could look at antipsychotic prescription in other states, or at other kinds of information from children like quality of life.

How can people use the results?

State policy makers can use these results when considering policies on antipsychotics for children in foster care.

Professional Abstract

Professional Abstract

Objective

To examine the effects of state antipsychotic prescription strategies for children in foster care (FC) on antipsychotic prescriptions and side effects among those children

Study Design

Design Elements Description
Design Observational: cohort study
Population In Ohio (13 counties), Wisconsin (six counties), and Washington (entire state), study compared all children who were receiving Medicaid and who were in FC with children who were not in FC; in Texas, study compared all children who were receiving Medicaid and who were in FC with children who were adopted with children who were adopted
Interventions/
Comparators
Four state antipsychotic prescription strategies in Ohio, Wisconsin, Washington, and Texas
Outcomes Prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy in children in FC (Ohio); antipsychotics prescribed to children in FC (Texas and Washington); metabolic testing rates for children in FC (Texas and Wisconsin)
Timeframe Up to 9-year follow-up for study outcomes

Researchers examined interventions that monitor antipsychotic prescriptions for children in FC in four states:

  • Ohio (13 counties): A providers’ guide on antipsychotic prescribing with a focus on polypharmacy, or the use of multiple antipsychotics
  • Wisconsin (six counties): Integration of medical and mental health services for children in FC
  • Washington: Prior authorization for antipsychotic prescriptions for children in FC based on review from child psychiatrists
  • Texas: Prescribing parameters for children in FC plus metabolic management to monitor side effects

The study included children receiving Medicaid in four states. Researchers examined Medicaid claims data before and after the implementation of the interventions to identify differences in outcomes for children in FC versus children not in FC with similar mental health conditions. In each state, researchers examined different outcomes and used different comparison groups.

Adults previously in FC, foster caregivers, social workers, doctors, and pharmacists helped plan the study.

Results

Ohio: Compared with children not in FC, children in FC had significantly greater decreases in polypharmacy rates from pre- to post-implementation. Children in FC had significantly higher polypharmacy rates at both time points (p<0.05).

Wisconsin: Metabolic testing rates improved significantly for children in FC on antipsychotics in pilot counties from pre- to post-implementation; rates were stable in non-pilot counties (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2, 19.7).

Washington: Initially, compared with children not in FC, rates of antipsychotic use declined less for children in FC. In the second year after implementation, rates of antipsychotic use declined significantly faster among children in FC.

Texas:

  • Compared with adopted children with conditions often treated with antipsychotics such as autism or bipolar disorder, children in FC with those conditions showed no significant differences in medications dispensed.
  • Children with externalizing conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and children with internalizing conditions like depression had significantly larger decreases than adopted children in the number of antipsychotics dispensed after implementation (p<0.05).
  • Compared with adopted children, metabolic testing rates were similar among children in FC with any diagnosed condition; rates increased significantly among both groups after the intervention was implemented.
  • Compared with children in FC who were treated with antipsychotics in Ohio (which had no intervention to increase metabolic monitoring), children in FC who were treated with antipsychotics in Texas had significantly greater increases in metabolic monitoring (95% CI = 0.02, 1.37).

Limitations

Researchers examined antipsychotic prescription strategies in four states. Results may differ in other states. Findings may have differed if researchers had measured outcomes using different data sources.

Conclusions and Relevance

The antipsychotic prescription policies studied improved appropriate use of antipsychotics for children in FC. State and local policy makers can use this research when considering antipsychotic prescription strategies for youth in FC.

Future Research Needs

Future research could study the effects of other antipsychotic prescription strategies. Researchers could also verify results using different data sources and client-centered outcomes such as quality of life.

This project's final research report is expected to be available by July 2021.

Journal Articles

Results of This Project

Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Antipsychotic Use Among Youth in Foster Care Enrolled in a Specialized Managed Care Organization Intervention

Related Articles

Pediatrics

Benzodiazepine Treatment and Fracture Risk in Young Persons With Anxiety Disorders

Health Services Research

Effectiveness of mandatory peer review to reduce antipsychotic prescriptions for Medicaid-insured children

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Prescription Benzodiazepine Use in Privately Insured U.S. Children and Adolescents

Health Affairs

Rapid Growth Of Antipsychotic Prescriptions For Children Who Are Publicly Insured Has Ceased, But Concerns Remain

More on this Project  

Evidence Updates

Antipsychotic Treatment for Children with Hyperactivity or Conduct Disorders
Clinicians often prescribe antipsychotics for children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders (DICDs). New evidence on the benefits and harms of this treatment can help with decisions about these drugs.

Peer-Review Summary 

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers expressed concern that the study described itself as a comparative effectiveness study of state interventions, but most of the analyses involved changes within individual states’ medication oversight programs. The reviewers asked the researchers to acknowledge the limited amount of comparisons they could make across states given the observational nature of this study. The researchers agreed that there were limitations in what comparative conclusions they could draw, and noted that a more experimental model, where children in foster care would be assigned randomly to different interventions, was not feasible. The researchers pointed out that the topic and need for better information would benefit from the type of large-scale data collection, quasi-experimental studies like this one. They expanded the report’s discussion to describe the types of inferences about between-state comparisons that could and could not be made in this type of study.
  • The reviewers questioned the report’s description of patient and stakeholder engagement. They asked for clarification on the role of stakeholders in developing the project and interpreting results. They asked why stakeholders were not listed as authors of the report. The reviewers also questioned why current children in foster care were not included as study stakeholders. The researchers said they involved patients and families extensively in developing research aims, choosing and prioritizing outcomes, and interpreting results. The researchers said they did not engage stakeholders in writing the report because the writing took place after the budget period of the project. Further, the researchers noted that there were state policy issues with having minors in foster care participate in research studies related to guardianship. In addition, the researchers hesitated to involve minors in the study given the sensitive topics that would be raised in discussions. The researchers ultimately felt that choosing to work with foster care alumni was more appropriate as well as more feasible while still providing a high level of insight into the foster care experience.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

View the COI disclosure form.

Project Details

Principal Investigator
Stephen Crystal, PhD, MS
Project Status
Completed; PCORI Public and Professional Abstracts Posted
Project Title
Comparative Effectiveness of State Psychotropic Oversight Systems for Children in Foster Care
Board Approval Date
April 2015
Project End Date
December 2020
Organization
Rutgers University–New Brunswick
Year Awarded
2015
State
New Jersey
Year Completed
2020
Project Type
Research Project
Health Conditions  
Mental/Behavioral Health
Addiction/Substance Abuse
Depression
Serious Mental Illness
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
Diabetes
Intervention Strategies
Behavioral Interventions
Other Clinical Interventions
Other Health Services Interventions
Policy Interventions
Technology Interventions
Training and Education Interventions
Populations
Children -- 18 and under
Low Income
Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Funding Announcement
Improving Healthcare Systems
Project Budget
$2,367,340
Study Registration Information
HSRP20153585
Page Last Updated: 
December 17, 2020

About Us

  • Our Programs
  • Governance
  • Financials and Reports
  • Procurement Opportunities
  • Our Staff
  • Our Vision & Mission
  • Contact Us

Research & Results

  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Research Fundamentals
  • Research Results Highlights
  • Putting Evidence to Work
  • Peer Review
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • About Our Research

Engagement

  • The Value of Engagement
  • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
  • Influencing the Culture of Research
  • Engagement Awards
  • Engagement Resources
  • Engage with Us

Funding Opportunities

  • What & Who We Fund
  • What You Need to Know to Apply
  • Applicant Training
  • Merit Review
  • Awardee Resources
  • Help Center

Meetings & Events

March 8
Engagement Awards 2021 Special Cycle -- Applicant Office Hours (One)
March 15
Priorities on the Health Horizon: Informing PCORI's Strategic Plan (Webinar)
March 15
PCORI Workshop on Methodologic Challenges in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research

PCORI

Footer contact address

Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute

1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 827-7700 | Fax: (202) 355-9558
[email protected]

Subscribe to Newsletter

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Vimeo

© 2011-2021 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademark Usage Guidelines | Credits | Help Center