MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Inappropriate Prescription Drugs by Older People

2002· article· en· W2113021977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph T. Hanlon, Kenneth E. Schmader, Chad Boult, Margaret B. Artz, Cynthia R. Gross, Gerda G. Fillenbaum, Christine M. Ruby, Judith Garrard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionOdds ratioEpidemiologyDrug classConfidence intervalDrugHealth careFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and predictors of inappropriate drug prescribing defined by expert national consensus panel drug utilization review criteria for community-dwelling older people. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Five adjacent urban and rural counties in the Piedmont area of North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: A stratified random sample of participants from the fourth (n = 3,234) and seventh (n = 2,508) waves of the Duke Established Populations for Epidemiological Studies of the Elderly. MEASUREMENTS: The prescribing appropriateness for digoxin, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, histamine(2) receptor antagonists, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants as determined by explicit criteria (through Health Care Financing Administration expert consensus panel drug utilization review criteria for dosage, duplication, drug-drug interactions and duration, and U.S. and Canadian expert consensus panel criteria for drug-disease interactions). Multivariable analyses, using weighted data adjusted for sampling design, were conducted to assess the association between inappropriate prescribing and demographic, health-status, and access-to-healthcare factors cross-sectionally and longitudinally. RESULTS: We found that 21.0 of the fourth wave and 19.2 of the seventh wave participants who used one or more agents from the eight drug classes had one or more elements identified as inappropriate. The therapeutic classes with the most problems were benzodiazepines and NSAIDs. The most common problems were with drug-disease interactions and duration of use. Longitudinal multivariable analyses found that participants who were white (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.67, 95 confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-2.17), were married (AOR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.01-1.93), had arthritis (AOR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.27-2.38), had one or more physical function disabilities (AOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.02-1.96), and had inappropriate drugs prescribed at wave 4 (AOR = 6.87, 95% CI = 5.11-9.22) were more likely to have inappropriate prescribing at wave 7. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that inappropriate prescribing is common among community-dwelling older people and persists over time. Longitudinal studies in older people are needed to examine the impact of inappropriate drug prescribing on health-related outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations168
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207