MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142700192 · doi:10.1177/070674370605100504

Sedative Hypnotic Use in Alberta

2006· article· en· W2142700192 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Aliya Kassam, Brian Carter, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypnoticSedative/hypnoticSedativeMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Benzodiazepines and similar sedative-hypnotics (BDZ-SSHs) are associated with both beneficial and adverse effects. Pharmacoepidemiologic data describing the use of these medications in contemporary Canadian populations has not been readily available. Our objective was to examine the hypothesis that increasing use of antidepressant medications for anxiety and mood disorders during the past decade led to less frequent use of BDZ-SSH medications. Method: We used data from an Alberta Mental Health Survey to describe the pattern of BDZ-SSH use and to estimate provincial and health region frequencies of use. We supplemented the data with pharmacy dispensing data from IMS Health. Results: The frequency of use was comparable to that reported in previous studies. Unexpectedly, in the survey data, we observed trends suggesting regional variation both in the frequency and pattern of use. Examination of prescription dispensing data confirmed this pattern. Clinical factors, including the use of other psychotropic medications and psychiatric diagnoses, were strongly associated with BDZ-SSH use. Among the drugs examined, zopiclone had the highest frequency of use. Prescription dispensing data confirmed that the frequency of zopiclone use in Alberta is higher than that in most other provinces. Conclusions: This descriptive study generates several new research questions and provides benchmarks for future pharmacoepidemiologic monitoring. Contexte: Les benzodiazépines et les sédatifs hypnotiques semblables (BDZ-SHS) sont associés à des effets tant bénéfiques qu'indésirables. Les données pharmaco-épidémiologiques décrivant l'utilisation de ces médicaments dans les populations canadiennes contemporaines ne sont pas facilement disponibles. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse que l'utilisation croissante d'antidépresseurs pour les troubles anxieux et de l'humeur au cours de la dernière décennie peut avoir entraîné une fréquence d'utilisation plus faible des BDZ-SHS. Méthode: Dans cette étude, nous avons utilisé les données d'une enquête sur la santé mentale en Alberta pour décrire le modèle d'utilisation des BDZ-SHS et estimer les fréquences d'utilisation à l'échelle de la province et de la région sanitaire. Les données ont été complétées par les données d'IMS Health sur les pharmacies exécutant les ordonnances. Résultats: La fréquence d'utilisation était comparable à celle rapportée dans les études précédentes. Inopinément, des tendances suggérant une variation régionale de la fréquence et du modèle d'utilisation ont été observées dans les données de l'enquête. L'examen des données sur l'exécution des ordonnances confirmait ce modèle. Les facteurs cliniques, incluant l'utilisation d'autres psychotropes et les diagnostics psychiatriques étaient fortement associés à l'utilisation des BDZ-SHS. Parmi les médicaments examinés, la zopiclone était le plus fréquemment utilisé. L'examen des données sur l'exécution des ordonnances confirmait que la fréquence d'utilisation de la zopiclone en Alberta est plus élevée que celle de la plupart des autres provinces. Conclusions: Cette étude descriptive donne lieu à plusieurs nouvelles questions de recherche et fournit des repères à la future surveillance pharmaco-épidémiologique.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207