Out-of-pocket costs and adherence to antihypertensive agents among older adults covered by the public drug insurance plan in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of patient out-of-pocket costs on adherence to antihypertensive agents (AHA) in community-dwelling older adults covered by the public drug insurance plan in Quebec. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from the "Étude sur la santé des aînés" study (2005-2008) on community-dwelling older adults in Quebec aged 65 years and older (N=2,811). The final sample included 881 participants diagnosed with arterial hypertension and treated with AHA. Medication adherence was measured with the proportion of days covered over a 2-year follow-up period (<80% and ≥80%). Out-of-pocket costs for AHA, in Canadian dollars (CAD), at cohort entry were categorized as follows: $0, $0.01-$5.00, $5.01-$10.00, $10.01-$15.00 and $15.01-$36.00. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to study adherence to AHA as a function of out-of-pocket costs while controlling for several confounders. Models were also stratified by annual household income (<$15,000 CAD and ≥$15,000 CAD). RESULTS: In this study, 80.8% of participants were adherent to their AHA. Among participants reporting an annual household income <$15,000 CAD, those with an out-of-pocket cost of $10.01-$15.00 CAD were significantly less adherent to their AHA than those with no contribution (OR =0.175, 95% CI: 0.042-0.740). Among participants reporting an income of ≥$15,000 CAD, those with out-of-pocket costs of $0.01-$5.00 CAD (OR =0.194; 95% CI: 0.048-0.787), $5.01-$10.00 CAD (OR =0.146; 95% CI: 0.036-0.589), $10.01-$15.00 CAD (OR =0.192; 95% CI: 0.047-0.777) and $15.01-$36.00 CAD (OR =0.160, 95% CI: 0.039-0.655) were significantly less adherent to their AHA than participants with no contribution. CONCLUSION: Increased out-of-pocket costs are associated with non-adherence to AHA in older adults covered by a public drug insurance plan, more importantly in those reporting an annual household income ≥$15,000 CAD. A reduction in the amount of out-of-pocket costs and yearly maximum contribution for drugs may improve adherence to treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 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".