Approved and Off-Label Use of Prescribed Psychotropic Medications among Federal Canadian Inmates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine psychotropic medication prescription practices in federal Canadian penitentiaries. METHOD: 468 files were drawn from a purposive sample of thirteen Canadian federal institutions representing the five regions, different security levels, and male and female designated facilities. Information on the names of all psychotropic medications prescribed, indications for use, dosage, frequency, and route of administration was retrieved. Designation of approved or off-label use of medications was determined by consulting: (1) the Health Canada (2016) Drug Product Database, (2) the Canadian Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties 2016, and (3) the American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information 2016. Prescription rates were examined by gender, Indigenous ancestry, drug class, institutional infractions, and current offence. RESULTS: 36.2% of prescriptions for psychotropic medication were coded as 'off-label'. Anxiolytic/hypnotics drugs were the psychotropic drugs most commonly used for off-label purposes. There were no differences in the prevalence of approved versus off-label prescriptions based on Indigenous ancestry or gender, and no pattern of elevated off-label prescription practices for offenders involved in institutional misconducts or those sentenced for the most serious crimes. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of prescribing 'off-label' psychotropic medication are not elevated relative to other correctional settings or to rates cited in Canadian surveys conducted in the community.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".