The Prescription of Insulin Pen Devices Versus Syringes for Older People with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insulin pen devices are easier to use and lead to better treatment adherence than syringes. This study sought to determine factors associated with the decision to prescribe insulin pen devices rather than syringes for older patients initiating insulin therapy. METHODS: A population-based study examined all Ontario, Canada residents > or = 66 years old who received a first prescription for insulin between 1998 and 2006 (n = 47,810). Associations between demographic/clinical factors and the use of pen devices for insulin delivery were determined. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of patients began insulin therapy using pen devices for insulin delivery, increasing from 46% in 1998 to 86% in 2006. Insulin initiation by a specialist was positively associated with the use of pen devices (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-2.40), whereas long-term care residence (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.49-0.54) and initiation during hospitalization (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.78) were negatively associated. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin pen devices were used by most patients starting insulin, but a substantial proportion of patients continued to be prescribed syringes for insulin delivery. The use of pen devices was positively associated with specialist care and negatively associated with insulin initiation during hospitalization. Increasing physicians' awareness of the benefits of pen devices to facilitate patient self-management could further increase their use and improve diabetes care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".