Prevalence of prescription and non-prescription polypharmacy by frailty and sex among middle-aged and older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Estimates of polypharmacy have primarily been derived from prescription claims, and less is known about the use of non-prescription medications (alone or in combination with prescription medications) across the frailty spectrum or by sex. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy (total, prescription, non-prescription, and concurrent prescription and non-prescription) overall, and by frailty, sex and broad age group. Data: Canadian Health Measures Survey, Cycle 5, 2016 to 2017. Methods: Among Canadians aged 40 to 79 years, all prescription and non-prescription medications used in the month prior to the survey were documented. Polypharmacy was defined as using five or more medications total (prescription and non-prescription), prescription only and non-prescription only. Concurrent prescription and non-prescription use was defined as two or more and three or more of each. Frailty was defined using a 31-item frailty index (FI) and categorized as non-frail (FI ≤ 0.1) and pre-frail or frail (FI > 0.1). Survey-weighted descriptive statistics were calculated overall and age standardized. Results: We analyzed 2,039 respondents, representing 16,638,026 Canadians (mean age of 56.9 years; 51% women). Overall, 52.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47.3 to 57.4) were defined as pre-frail or frail. Age-standardized estimates of total polypharmacy, prescription polypharmacy and concurrent prescription and non-prescription medication use were significantly higher among pre-frail or frail versus non-frail adults (e.g., total polypharmacy: 64.1% versus 31.8%, respectively). Polypharmacy with non-prescription medications was common overall (20.5% [95% CI = 16.1 to 25.8]) and greater among women, but did not differ significantly by frailty. Interpretation: Polypharmacy and concurrent prescription and non-prescription medication use were common among Canadian adults, especially those who were pre-frail or frail. Our findings highlight the importance of considering non-prescribed medications when measuring the exposure to medications and the potential risk for adverse outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".