MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1538488821

Recherche évaluative du programme AP-STOP : AntiPsychotiques : Sensibilisation à leur bon usage pour les Troubles de compOrtement des Personnes âgées atteintes de démence

2015· article· fr· W1538488821 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mélina Dufour, Savannah Gerardi, Marie-Ève Jodoin-Poirier, Claudie Richer, Judith S. Gravel, Martine Joncas, Sophie Rivard, Djamal Berbiche, Lyne Lalonde

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGynecologyPolitical scienceMedicinePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume Objectif : Une campagne AP-STOP de sensibilisation a l’usage optimal des antipsychotiques pour les troubles de comportement associes a la demence a ete menee a l’Hopital de la Cite-de-la-Sante de Laval. Notre etude evalue les retombees de cette campagne sur la reevaluation de l’usage des antipsychotiques pour les patients hospitalises souffrant de troubles de comportement associes a la demence. Methodologie : Cette etude quasi experimentale s’est penchee sur le nombre de reevaluations des antipsychotiques pris par des patients hospitalises, âges de plus de 65 ans et atteints de demence. Elle a compare la proportion de patients ayant subi une reevaluation de l’usage des antipsychotiques (risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, haloperidol) avant et apres une campagne de sensibilisation. La campagne, qui se deroulait sur huit semaines, comportait des activites individuelles de formation continue appuyees par un outil clinique, qui s’adressaient aux cliniciens. Les criteres de reevaluation de l’antipsychotique se definissaient comme suit : suppression du medicament, reduction du dosage, tentative de suppression de l’antipsychotique ou de reduction du dosage de l’antipsychotique ou note medicale suggerant au medecin de famille de reevaluer l’antipsychotique, le tout bien explique dans le dossier medical du patient. En utilisant le modele de Cox, nous avons compare les eventualites de reevaluation de l’usage des antipsychotiques entre les deux groupes, tout en ajustant les resultats en fonction des caracteristiques des patients et de leur hospitalisation. Resultats : Nous avons evalue les dossiers medicaux de 616 patients et inclus 125 patients dans le groupe precedant la campagne et 85 patients dans celui succedant a la campagne. Le taux de reevaluation des antipsychotiques etait de 35,4 % apres la campagne, comparativement a 26,4 % avant la campagne (rapport de risque ajuste : 1,23; intervalle de confiance (IC) 95 % : 0,73–2,04). Conclusion : Cette etude ne permet pas de conclure qu’une campagne de sensibilisation ameliore l’usage des antipsychotiques pour les troubles de comportement associes a la demence en milieu hospitalier. Abstract Objective: AP-STOP, an awareness campaign on the optimal use of antipsychotics for behavioural problems related to dementia, was carried out at the Hopital Cite-de-la-Sante de Laval. This study evaluated the impact of this campaign on the use of antipsychotics for hospitalized patients with behavioural problems related to dementia. Method: This quasi-experimental study compared the proportion of inpatients, before and after the campaign, who were over the age of 65 and had dementia for which antipsychotic usage (risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, or haloperidol) was reevaluated. Held over an eight-week period, the campaign included a continuing education program for the clinicians, with individual training activities supported by a clinical tool. An antipsychotic was considered reevaluated if any of the following occurred: a discontinuation or an attempted discontinuation of the antipsychotic; a dosage reduction or an attempted dosage reduction of the antipsychotic; a pharmacy note documented in the patient’s medical record to reevaluate the antipsychotic. Using a Cox model, the likelihood of reevaluation was compared between the two groups, adjusting for patient characteristics and features of their hospital stay. Results: The medical records of 616 patients were examined, and 125 patients and 85 patients were included in the pre-campaign and post-campaign group, respectively. After the campaign, 35.4 % of the antipsychotics were reevaluated compared with 26.4 % before the campaign (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.23; 95 % CI: 0.73–2.04). Conclusion: This study does not permit the conclusion that an awareness campaign improves the use of antipsychotics for behavioural problems related to dementia in hospitals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.609
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth, Medicine and Society→French-language works237,207→