MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460492407 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20150131

Frequency and cost of potentially inappropriate prescribing for older adults: a cross-sectional study

2016· article· en· W2460492407 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlCanadian Institute for Health InformationUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionBeers CriteriaGeriatricsPharmaceutical Benefits SchemePolypharmacyPharmacoepidemiologyPrescription drugCross-sectional studyOlder peopleFamily medicineGerontologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many medications pose greater health risks when prescribed for older adults, compared with available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives. We sought to quantify the frequency and cost of potentially inappropriate prescribing for older women and men in Canada. METHODS: Using data for 2013 from the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System database, which contains prescription claims from publicly financed drug plans in all provinces except for Quebec, we identified the frequency of prescribing and cost of potentially inappropriate medications dispensed to provincial drug plan enrollees aged 65 years or more. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions were defined with the use of the American Geriatrics Society's 2012 version of the Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. RESULTS: For the 6 provinces with relatively complete data coverage (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island), 37% of older people filled 1 or more prescription meeting the Beers Criteria. A higher proportion of women (42%) than men (31%) filled potentially inappropriate prescriptions. The highest rates of prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications were among women aged 85 or more (47%). Benzodiazepines and other hypnotics were the leading contributors to the overall frequency of and sex differences in prescribing of potentially inappropriate drugs among older adults. We estimated that $75 per older Canadian, or $419 million in total, was spent on potentially inappropriate medications outside of hospital settings in 2013. INTERPRETATION: Prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults is common and costly in Canada, especially for women. Multipronged and well-coordinated strategies to reduce the use and cost of potentially inappropriate drugs would likely generate significant health system savings while simultaneously generating major benefits to patient health.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.292 · 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