Trends in benzodiazepine and alternative hypnotic use in relation with multimorbidity among older adults in <scp>Quebec, Canada</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and other hypnotic alternatives are associated with increased risks of adverse events. Heightened awareness of risks may have changed prescribing habits over the years. However, these trends are not fully described, especially in vulnerable people such as multimorbid older adults. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the annual prevalence of benzodiazepine and other hypnotic use in relation to multimorbidity among older adults in the province of Quebec, Canada, from 2000 to 2016. METHOD: We conducted a population-based study using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. We included all individuals aged ≥66 years covered by the public drug plan. For each year, we evaluated the sex- and age-standardized proportion of benzodiazepine and other hypnotic users, defined as individuals with at least one drug claim in the year. We stratified our results according to multimorbidity and used log-binomial regression to study trends. RESULTS: The proportion of individuals using benzodiazepines decreased from 34.8% in 2000 to 24.8% in 2016 (p for trend <0.001). Multimorbid people (≥2 chronic diseases) remained the highest users over the years, with 43.3% and 30.6% of them being users in 2000 and 2016, respectively. Conversely, the proportion of users increased for other hypnotics, particularly for trazodone and quetiapine, rising from 5.4% to 8.4% (p < 0.001), and especially among multimorbid individuals (from 7.4% to 11.6%). CONCLUSION: Older adults used benzodiazepines less frequently but quetiapine and trazodone more frequently in recent years. The use of these medications, particularly in multimorbid people at risk of adverse events, must be addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".