Use of Medicines by Community Dwelling Elderly in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prescription medicine use by the elderly is of growing concern as indicated by a large literature focused on rising costs, patient compliance and the appropriateness of use. However, prescriptions account for only a portion of medicines used by the elderly, who have increasing access to non-prescription medicines and natural health products. The objective of this paper is to describe overall medicine use among the elderly in Ontario. METHODS: Using the National Population Health Survey (1996/97), we describe self-reported use of prescription, non-prescription and alternative medicines among elderly Ontarians aged 65+, and we compare use among four age sub-groups and by gender. Analysis is focused on the prevalence of, and the relative balance of use of different types of medicines. RESULTS: About one quarter of the respondents reported using no prescription or non-prescription medicines in the two days prior to being surveyed; a large majority reported using two or fewer medicines only, and use of non- prescription medicines was reported more often than prescription medicines (56% vs 48%). Use of natural health products by seniors is relatively low, but we observe a trend toward increased use in younger age groups. DISCUSSION: The findings place the consumption of prescription medicines by the elderly into a broader context that reveals that much of medicine use by the elderly involves non-prescribed products. We highlight the need to better understand seniors' decision-making regarding the different types of medicines available, and the financial costs and health risks of the medicine regimes of elderly persons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".