Prevalence and predictors of polypharmacy in Jordanian hospitalised patients: A cross‐sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of polypharmacy in hospitalised patients in Jordan to help guide healthcare efforts in decreasing the burden on the healthcare system. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the University of Jordan Hospital in Amman, Jordan. During the study period, a convenience sample of patients admitted to the internal medicine and surgical wards were approached to take part in this study. Following patients' recruitments, patients were interviewed and their medical files were reviewed to obtain demographic and clinical information regarding their medical conditions and their regular use of medicines. Then, the prevelence of patients with polypharmacy were identified, and factors predicting polypharmacy among them were determined. RESULTS: Among the 300 participants who agreed to participate in this study, females represented 45.3% of the recruited sample (n = 139), and around 48.0% (n = 144) of the study sample were elderly people (≥65 years old). Most of the recruited patients (n = 248, 82.7%) were found to use polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications). Hypertension was the most frequent medical condition among study participants (n = 240, 80.0%) followed by diabetes (n = 185, 61.7%). Results of logistic regression analysis showed that polypharmacy was only significantly affected by patients' age (OR = 2.149, P-value = .024) and monthly income (OR = 0.336, P-value = .009), while other factors were not associated with polypharmacy. Elderly patients (≥65 years) were found to have polypharmacy more significantly than non-elderly patients. Also, those with lower monthly income (<500 JD) were found to use lower polypharmacy compared with those with higher monthly income (>500 JD). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that polypharmacy is prevalent among patients in Jordan. While polypharmacy was not affected by smoking status, gender, BMI and educational level, it was significantly affected by monthly income and age. Further plans should be put in place to reduce polypharmacy, starting with effective pharmaceutical care services leading to treatment optimisation and ensuring desired treatment outcomes.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».