MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085110145 · doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204726.141

PP46 A cross country comparison of the effect of co-payments for prescriptions on adherence to medications

2014· article· en· W2085110145 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionMedicinePharmacyCopaymentMedicaidPopulationCohortHealth policyCost sharingPrescription drugFamily medicineDemographyHealth carePublic healthEnvironmental healthInternal medicineNursingEconomicsEconomic growthHealth insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Generalisability has been reported as a barrier to using evidence in policy making. Little data are available on whether US and Canadian based evidence on cost-sharing and medication adherence is generalizable to international populations. To explore external validity, we compared the impact of two similar cost sharing policies, one in the US and one in Ireland, on medication adherence. <h3>Methods</h3> A repeated measures longitudinal study design was employed to measure individual drug adherence before and after the introduction of drug cost-sharing policies. The Irish policy introduced a 50 cent copayment/prescription item in a publicly insured population in 2010. A similar policy occurred in the Massachusetts Medicaid population in 2003. Prescription data were obtained from centrally held pharmacy claims databases; HSE-PCRS, in Ireland and Medicaid Analytical Extract in the US New users of anti-hypertensive, anti-hyperlipidaemic and anti-diabetes drugs entered the cohort 6 months prior to initiation of cost-sharing polices and were followed for 12 months post-policy change. Segmented regression with generalised estimating equations and an autoregressive correlation structure was used. <h3>Results</h3> The Irish policy change resulted in a 3.9% (95% CI, 2.91%-5.02%) immediate drop in adherence to anti-hypertensive drugs in Ireland, whereas the US policy did not affect anti-hypertensive adherence. Relative to the US, the Irish population had a 5.3% (95% CI, 3.68% - 6.92%) additional decrease in adherence to anti-hypertensive drugs immediately after the policy change. Adherence to anti-hyperlipidaemic drugs was insignificantly reduced (-0.6235%, 95% CI, - 2.41%-1.16%) immediately post-policy change in the U. S. However, adherence to anti-hyperlipidaemics was reduced in Ireland by 3.4% (95% CI, 2.25%-4.62%). Compared to the US, Irish patients decreased their adherence to anti-hyperlipidaemics by 2.8% (95% CI, 0.673%-4.945%). Adherence to anti-diabetic drugs did not differ internationally post-policy change. There was no evidence for international differences in the long-term impact (12 months) of policy changes. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Irish and US populations had different changes in adherence to anti-hypertensive and anti-hyperlipidaemic drugs directly after implementation of cost-sharing policies, with greater reductions in adherence in the Irish population. However, changes in adherence to anti-diabetic drugs were similar between the populations. This study suggests that North American and Canadian evidence may not be automatically internationally generalizable. Rather, the specific attributes of a setting should always be considered before applying evidence to policy. This novel study will be of interest to global policymakers as they seek to develop evidence based cost-sharing policies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.381 · 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