MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2963845700 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029613

Patterns of opioid use (codeine, morphine or meperidine) in the Canadian population over time: analysis of the Longitudinal National Population Health Survey 1994–2011

2019· article· en· W2963845700 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mayilée Cañizares, J. Denise Power, Y. Raja Rampersaud, Elizabeth M. Badley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsMedicineBaby boomCohortPopulationCodeineDemographyCohort studyCohort effectOpioidPediatricsMorphineEnvironmental healthAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate cohort effects in selected opioids use and determine whether cohort differences were associated with changes in risk factors for use over time. DESIGN: This study presents secondary analyses of a longitudinal survey panel of the general population that collected data biannually. SETTING: Data from the Canadian Longitudinal National Population Health Survey 1994-2011. POPULATION: This study included 12 542 participants from the following birth cohorts: post-World War I (born 1915-1924), pre-World War II (born 1925-1934), World War II (born 1935-1944), Older Baby Boom (born 1945-1954), Younger Baby Boom (born 1955-1964), Older Generation X (born 1965-1974) and Younger Generation X (born 1975-1984). MAIN OUTCOME: Responses to a single question asking about the use of codeine, morphine or meperidine in the past month (yes/no) were examined. RESULTS: Over and above age and period effects, there were significant cohort differences in selected opioids use: each succeeding recent cohort had greater use than their predecessors (eg, Gen Xers had greater use than younger baby boomers). Selected opioids use increased significantly from 1994 to 2002, plateauing between 2002 and 2006 and then declining until 2011. After accounting for cohort and period effects, there was a decline in use of these opioids with increasing age. Although pain was significantly associated with greater selected opioids use (OR=3.63, 95% CI 3.39 to 3.94), pain did not explain cohort differences. Cohort and period effects were no longer significant after adjusting for the number of chronic conditions. Cohort differences in selected opioids use mirrored cohort differences in multimorbidity. Use of these opioids was significantly associated with taking antidepressants or tranquillisers (OR=2.52, 95% CI 2.27 to 2.81 and OR=1.60, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.75, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the need to consider multimorbidity including possible psychological disorders and associated medications when prescribing opioids (codeine, morphine, meperidine), particularly for recent birth cohorts. Continued efforts to monitor prescription patterns and develop specific opioid use guidelines for multimorbidity appear warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→