Patients’ and psychiatrists’ perspectives on clozapine treatment—a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION: The atypical antipsychotic clozapine has shown superior efficacy compared with other antipsychotics and is the gold standard for treating otherwise treatment resistant schizophrenia. However, multiple studies have found that clozapine is underutilised in most parts of the world. A few reviews of literature addressing barriers to clozapine prescribing have been conducted. While there is some variation in the literature included in these reviews, a common feature of the studies included is that they primarily focus on clinical staff’s attitudes and perceived barriers for prescribing. Studies of patient perspectives are only sparsely included. A preliminary literature search revealed though, that additional literature on the subject exists, including literature on patient perspectives. It is therefore difficult to conclude if the formerly synthesised literature is representative of current evidence or if the topic has been adequately investigated to inform clinical practice. A scoping review is warranted in order to map and synthesise primary literature on patients’ and psychiatrists’ perspectives on clozapine treatment, and to identify gaps for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The electronic databases Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, Psychinfo, MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched for relevant publications, supplied with searches of Google scholar, The Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations and OpenGrey. Citation tracking of selected studies will furthermore be undertaken. Two researchers will independently screen and extract data. Data will be collated to provide a descriptive summary of the literature, along with a qualitative content analysis of key findings. Identified gaps in research will be accompanied by recommendations for future investigations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. The scoping review does not require ethics approval.