Comparison of polypharmacy and pharmacotherapy among seniors in social institutions in 2001 and 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy (polypharmacotherapy) is a serious problem among seniors. The aim of the work was to compare pharmacotherapy and polypharmacy among seniors in social facilities in 2001 and 2019. METHODOLOGY: As of December 31, 2001, we collected data on the pharmacotherapy of 151 residents of two retirement homes (average age 75.1 years, 68.9% women). We compared the results with the pharmacotherapy of residents of two facilities for seniors as of October 31, 2019 (237 seniors, average age 80.5 years, 73.4% women). According to the medical records, we determined and compared the regularly used medicines of all residents, the use of medicines by age and sex, the use of 0-4 medicines, 5-9 medicines, 5 or more medicines, 10 or more medicines and the groups of medicines according to the ATC classification. For statistical processing, we used the t-test and chi-square test. RESULTS: In 2001, residents regularly used a total of 891 medicines, 18 years later, they used a total of 2099 medicines. We observed a significant increase in the average number of regularly used medications per resident by more than a half (from 5.90 medications to 8.86 medications), in women from 6.11 drugs to 9.24 drugs and in men from 5.45 drugs to 7.81 drugs. The number of residents with polypharmacy (regular use of ≥ 5 drugs) increased by almost a quarter (from 70.2% to 87.3%), and the number of seniors with excessive polypharmacy (regular use of ≥ 10 drugs) increased 4.6 times (from 9, 3% to 43.5%). CONCLUSION: Our work confirmed that over the course of 18 years, the number of medications used by seniors in social-type institutions has increased. It also points to the trend of increasing polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy among seniors, especially at the age of 75+ and among women.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".