MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241640836 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-88543/v1

Interventions to Reduce Benzodiazepine and Sedative-Hypnotic Drug Use in Acute Care Hospitals: A Scoping Review

2020· review· en· W4241640836 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather Neville, Courtney Granter, Pegah Adibi, Julia Belliveau, Jennifer E. Isenor, Susan K. Bowles

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsSedative/hypnoticBenzodiazepinePsychological interventionMedicineSedativeDrugIntensive care medicineAcute careHypnoticAnti-Anxiety AgentsPsychiatryHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Benzodiazepines and sedative-hypnotics (BZD/SHD) are commonly utilized in the acute care setting for insomnia and anxiety and are associated with cognitive impairment, falls, fractures, and increased mortality. Interventions to reduce use of BZD/SHD in hospitals are not well characterized. The objective of the scoping review was to identify and characterize interventions to reduce the use of BZD/SHD by adults for anxiety and sedation in hospitals.Methods We included studies and abstracts published in English that described an intervention to reduce BZD/SHD in adult hospital patients. Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science) and the grey literature (Opengrey, Grey Matters, Google Advanced) were searched up to July 2018. Titles and abstracts were screened and full-text articles were reviewed for potential inclusion by three independent reviewers. Data on each eligible study was charted in a Microsoft Excel® database. Stakeholder consultation occurred before and after the scoping review was completed. Results There were 9480 records identified from all sources and 35 studies were included in the scoping review. Included studies were divided into two categories that emerged from stakeholder feedback: sedatives prescribed in hospital or home medications. The most common study designs were pre-/post-test (24, 68.6%) and randomized controlled trials (6, 17.1%). The majority of studies tested a single intervention (28, 80%) and these were most commonly education, relaxation training and sleep protocols. Patients were frequently the target of relaxation training and behavior change interventions, while sleep protocols, multifaceted interventions and education were usually directed at healthcare providers, either alone or in combination with patients. Most studies reported positive outcomes in decreasing BZD/SHD use (23, 65.7%), including some that were statistically significant (13, 37.1%). Conclusions This scoping review found a variety of interventions aimed at decreasing the utilization of BZD/SHD in the acute care setting, where previously little was known. Current literature addressed the initiation of BZD/SHD in hospital, rather than chronic medications that had been prescribed in the community. Stakeholder consultation supported these findings and pointed out important factors to consider when designing an intervention for hospital patients. Registration: Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/u7s4h/?view_only=15a9b9134be743b6a4177ba2eec9e91a

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→