Prevalence of, and Resident and Facility Characteristics Associated With Antipsychotic Use in Assisted Living vs. Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Analysis from Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use in long-term care (LTC) facilities has been the focus of significant policy and clinical attention over the past 20 years. However, most initiatives aimed at reducing the use of these medications have overlooked assisted living (AL) settings. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the prevalence of antipsychotic use (including potentially inappropriate use) among older AL and LTC residents and to explore the resident and facility-level factors associated with use in these two populations. METHODS: We performed cross-sectional analyses of 1089 residents (mean age 85 years; 77% female) from 59 AL facilities and 1000 residents (mean age 85 years; 66% female) from 54 LTC facilities, in Alberta, Canada. Research nurses completed comprehensive resident assessments at baseline (2006-2007). Facility-level factors were assessed using standardized administrator interviews. Generalized linear models were used to estimate odds ratios for associations, accounting for clustering by facility. RESULTS: Over a quarter of residents in AL (26.4%) and LTC (31.8%) were using antipsychotics (p = 0.006). Prevalence of potentially inappropriate use was similar in AL and LTC (23.4 vs. 26.8%, p = 0.09). However, among users, the proportion of antipsychotic use deemed potentially inappropriate was significantly higher in AL than LTC (AL: 231/287 = 80.5%; LTC: 224/318 = 70.4%; p = 0.004). In both settings, comparable findings regarding associations between resident characteristics (including dementia, psychiatric disorders, frailty, behavioral symptoms, and antidepressant use) and antipsychotic use were observed. Few facility characteristics were associated with overall antipsychotic use, but having a pharmacist on staff (AL), or an affiliated physician (LTC) was associated with a lower likelihood of potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate the importance of including AL settings in clinical and policy initiatives aimed at reducing inappropriate antipsychotic use among older vulnerable residents.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".