A Comparison of Benzodiazepine and Related Drug Use in Nova Scotia and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Benzodiazepines can be a problem if used for long periods, or in at-risk populations, such as the elderly. We compared the use of benzodiazepine and related prescription medicines in Nova Scotia and Australia. Methods: The Nova Scotia Pharmacare Program and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Australia were used to obtain dispensing data in comparable populations for all publicly subsidized benzodiazepines and related compounds. Usage was compared from 2000 to 2003, using the World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical and defined daily dosage (DDD) system. We also determined differences in the types of benzodiazepines prescribed. Results: The use of benzodiazepines increased at a steady but comparable rate in both areas. However, the use of benzodiazepines in Nova Scotia was more than double that of Australia in 2000 (123 and 48 DDD/1000 beneficiaries per day, respectively) through 2003 (138 and 57 DDD/1000 beneficiaries per day, respectively). Eight different benzodiazepines made up 90% of the drug use in Nova Scotia by contrast to only 4 different benzodiazepines in Australia. Conclusions: Large differences exist between the type and rate of benzodiazepine prescribing in Nova Scotia and Australia, with Nova Scotia reporting more than twice as much use. Benzodiazepine use in both jurisdictions is increasing. The Canadian findings are especially concerning as benzodiazepine use in the Atlantic provinces has been reported to be less than other provinces. The variations between the 2 jurisdictions may be due to factors such as fewer benzodiazepines available in Australia, differences in prescriber, patient attitudes and behaviours, or different initiatives to influence benzodiazepine use. Objectif: Les benzodiazépines peuvent poser un problème si elles sont utilisées sur de longues périodes, ou par des populations à risque, comme les personnes âgées. Nous avons comparé l'utilisation de benzodiazépines et de médicaments sur ordonnance connexes en Nouvelle-Écosse et en Australie. Méthodes: Le programme d'assurance-médicaments de la Nouvelle-Écosse et celui d'Australie (le Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) ont servi à obtenir les données sur les ordonnances dans des populations comparables pour toutes les benzodiazépines et tous les composés connexes subventionnés par l'État. L'utilisation a été comparée de 2000 à 2003, à l'aide des codes de classification anatomique thérapeutique chimique et du système de doses thérapeutiques quotidiennes (DTQ) de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé. Nous avons aussi déterminé les différences entre les types de benzodiazépines prescrites. Résultats: L'utilisation de benzodiazépines a augmenté à un rythme régulier mais comparable dans les deux régions. Cependant, l'utilisation de benzodiazépines en Nouvelle-Écosse était plus que le double de celle de l'Australie en 2000 (123 et 48 DTQ/1000 bénéficiaires chaque jour, respectivement) jusqu'en 2003 (138 et 57 DTQ/1000 bénéficiaires chaque jour, respectivement). Huit différentes benzodiazépines constituaient 90 % de l'utilisation de médicaments en Nouvelle-Écosse, contrairement à seulement 4 différentes benzodiazépines en Australie. Conclusions: De grandes différences existent entre le type et le taux des prescriptions de benzodiazépines en Nouvelle-Écosse et en Australie, la Nouvelle-Écosse déclarant plus que le double de l'utilisation. L'utilisation de benzodiazépines augmente dans les deux territoires. Les résultats canadiens sont particulièrement préoccupants car il a été signalé que l'utilisation de benzodiazépines était moindre dans les provinces atlantiques que dans les autres provinces. Les variations entre les 2 territoires peuvent être attribuables à des facteurs comme l'offre réduite de benzodiazépines en Australie, les différences chez les prescripteurs, les attitudes et le comportement des patients, ou les différentes initiatives influençant l'utilisation de benzodiazépines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".