Topical Corticosteroid Prescribing Patterns following Changes in Drug Benefit Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in prescribing patterns for topical corticosteroid products dispensed to elderly patients in Nova Scotia, Canada, after all but 2 combination topical corticosteroid products were removed from the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program benefit list. METHODS: Administrative prescription claims from the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program were used to identify the number and costs of topical corticosteroid, antifungal, antibiotic, and combination corticosteroid products dispensed. Time-series analysis was used to compare the periods before (April 1, 1999-March 31, 2000) and after (April 1, 2000-March 31, 2001) the delisting. RESULTS: In 1999-2000, 26,031 of 103 400 eligible elderly patients (25%) and in 2000-2001, 22,837 of 95,550 eligible elderly (24%) received a prescription for a defined topical product. Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program expenditures for all topical products decreased from 11.88 to 10.60 Canadian dollars per beneficiary per year (11%) after the policy revision. Topical combination products decreased from 18% of all topical products dispensed to 14%, while the percentage of potent corticosteroid products dispensed increased from 24% to 27% over the study period. Pre- and post-policy time-trend analysis showed statistically significant increasing trends in cost per beneficiary for all topical products and potent corticosteroid products. Combination corticosteroid products showed no change in trends for costs per beneficiary before, and a slight increasing trend after, the policy revision. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing of topical corticosteroid combination products in Nova Scotia decreased following the formulary revision. There was an increase in potent topical corticosteroid prescribing. Future study involving evaluation of patient outcomes would be useful.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".