Prescribing trends of antipsychotics in youth receiving income assistance: results from a retrospective population database study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prescribing of antipsychotics (AP) to young people has increased in the last decade internationally. We aimed to characterize AP prescribing in a population of low-income youth in Nova Scotia, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a population database study of AP prescription claims and health services utilization by young people aged 25 years and younger receiving drug benefits through the publicly funded Pharmacare program between October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2007. RESULTS: Four percent (1715/43888) of youth receiving Pharmacare benefits filled AP prescriptions. The use of second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) significantly increased (p < 0.0001) in all age groups except 0-5 year olds, whereas first generation antipsychotic use significantly decreased. Pharmacare beneficiaries aged 21-25 years represented 45.2% of AP users. The majority (66%) of youth filling AP prescriptions had 2 or more psychiatric diagnoses. Most youth (76%) filled prescriptions for only one type of AP during the study period. Psychotic disorders were the most common indication for AP use except with risperidone, in which ADHD was the most likely reason for use. Co-prescribing of psychotropics was prevalent with antidepressants and mood stabilizers prescribed in 42% and 27% of AP users, respectively. General practitioners (GPs) prescribed incident APs most often (72%) followed by psychiatrists (16%). The age- and gender-adjusted rate of death was higher in AP users as compared to the age-matched general population of Nova Scotia. CONCLUSIONS: SGA use increased significantly over seven years in a cohort of 0 to 25 years olds receiving Pharmacare benefits. Off-label use of APs was prevalent with ADHD and other non-psychotic disorders being common reasons for AP use. GPs initiated most AP prescriptions. Co-prescribing of other psychotropics, especially antidepressants and mood stabilizers, was prevalent even in younger age strata. This study raises further questions about AP prescribing in those 25 years of age and under, especially given the range of diagnoses and psychotropic co-prescribing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".