Use of the EMPOWER brochure to deprescribe sedative-hypnotic drugs in older adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based mailed educational brochures about the harms of sedative-hypnotic use lead to discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use in older adults. It remains unknown whether patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are able to understand the information in the EMPOWER brochures, and whether they achieve similar rates of benzodiazepine discontinuation. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of the EMPOWER randomized, double-blind, wait-list controlled trial that assessed the effect of a direct-to-consumer educational intervention on benzodiazepine discontinuation. 303 community-dwelling chronic users of benzodiazepine medication aged 65-95 years were recruited from general community pharmacies in the original trial, 261 (86%) of which completed the trial extension phase. All participants of the control arm received the EMPOWER brochure during the trial extension. Normal cognition (n = 139) or MCI (n = 122) was determined during baseline cognitive testing using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment questionnaire. Changes in knowledge pre- and post-intervention were assessed with a knowledge questionnaire and changes in beliefs were calculated using the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare knowledge gained, change in beliefs and benzodiazepine cessation rates between participants with and without MCI. RESULTS: Complete discontinuation of benzodiazepines was achieved in 39 (32.0% [24.4,40.7]) participants with MCI and in 53 (38.1% [30.5,46.4]) with normal cognition (adjusted OR 0.79, 95% CI [0.45-1.38]). Compared to individuals with normal cognition, MCI had no effect on the acquisition of new knowledge, change in beliefs about benzodiazepines or elicitation of cognitive dissonance. CONCLUSIONS: The EMPOWER brochure is effective for reducing benzodiazepines in community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2010.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".