MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2027781054 · doi:10.1177/1715163513490654

Wasted medications, wasted resource

2013· article· en· W2027781054 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeffry Tchen, Régis Vaillancourt, Annie Pouliot

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Établissements canadiensChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésUnderinsuredGovernment (linguistics)Medical prescriptionPharmacyBusinessHealth careCopaymentMedicineHealth insuranceEnvironmental healthEconomic growthFamily medicineNursingEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Canada, almost anything can be recycled; however, medication is not currently recycled in community practice. For many years, US hospitals in some states have taken unused medication and redispensed it without an issue.1 In 2010, Canadians spent $31.1 billion on drugs.2 It is estimated that 3% to 7% of medications intended for patients goes unused in the United States and that similar wastage could cost Canada approximately $8 billion annually.3,4 In the current economic climate, the government is searching for ways to improve and pay for public health care. Recycling medication is a solution that sacrifices neither quality nor finances. A Health Canada study from 2000 revealed that more than 10% of Canadians had no insurance, while another 10% were considered underinsured (those spending 2.5% of their gross family income for drugs are considered underinsured and those paying 4.5% are considered uninsured).5 Medications are not covered for outpatients, resulting in a situation where those who cannot afford medications have adherence issues. The lack of a publicly funded program to pay for medications for marginalized Canadians puts them at increased risk of health problems, stress and hospitalization. In 38 US states, there have been medication recycling programs in place dating as far back as 1997.3 In Tulsa, Oklahoma, alone, 6000 prescriptions were collected in 2005, which resulted in a savings of $1.4 million.6 In this program, drugs were collected from nursing homes and then distributed to patients in need via a central pharmacy.1 The nursing home residents sign a consent form to release their medication to the recycling program. Those who wish to participate in the program must sign a consent form acknowledging they understand the purpose of the program and that the pharmacy, pharmacist and manufacturers are not held responsible for medications that have been donated in good faith. To ensure patient safety, all states that have legislation concerning drug recycling contain provisions: that all collected donations must have an expiration date and not be expired, that a licensed pharmacist is part of the verification and distribution process, that each patient who receives a drug must have a valid prescription and that controlled substances cannot be collected. In some states, only drugs that are packaged in unit doses and have not left the circle of care can be collected, so that the safety of the medicines can be ensured. In the 3 years that the Iowa Prescription Drug Corporation has been distributing recycled drugs, there has been no evidence that patient safety has been compromised.1 Currently, laws in most provinces prevent an initiative like this from taking place because it is professional misconduct to redispense and resell medication. These laws have been put in place to protect the public, but are we really protecting the segments of the population unable to afford medication? Canadians who lack insurance, for instance when they are unemployed or their finances are not sufficient, can be put under unnecessary stress by needing to find ways to pay for potentially lifesaving medication. Although a recycling program would not resolve access to medication as fully as universal prescription coverage, it would fill a void for those Canadians who would otherwise have to make difficult financial decisions. A Canadian recycling program, run by a not-for-profit organization to prevent double-billing, would not put added pressure on government and would save patients money and improve their health without putting them at increased risk. We need to implement a program like this in Canada to ensure that everybody who needs medication can access it. ■

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,186
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,371

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,012
Communication savante0,0110,007
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0260,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,118
Tête enseignante GPT0,391
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2013
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaMême sujetFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsTravaux en français237 207