MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362601424 · doi:10.1177/07067437231166836

Impact of a Publicly-Funded Pharmacare Program on Prescription Stimulant use Among Children and Youth: A Population-Based Observational Natural Experiment

2023· article· en· W4362601424 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tony Antoniou, Daniel McCormack, Sophie Kitchen, Kathleen Pajer, William Gardner, Yona Lunsky, Melanie Penner, Mina Tadrous, Muhammad Mamdani, David N. Juurlink, Tara Gomes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStimulantMedical prescriptionPopulationMedicineObservational studyConfidence intervalDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Stimulants are first-line pharmacotherapy for individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. However, disparities in drug coverage may contribute to inequitable treatment access. In January 2018, the government of Ontario, Canada, implemented a publicly-funded program (OHIP+) providing universal access to medications at no cost to children and youth between the ages of 0 and 24. In April 2019, the program was amended to cover only children and youth without private insurance. We studied whether these policy changes were associated with changes in prescription stimulant dispensing to Ontario children and youth. METHODS: We conducted a population-based observational natural experiment study of stimulant dispensing to children and youth in Ontario between January 2013 and March 2020. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to estimate the association between OHIP+ and its subsequent modification with stimulant dispensing trends. RESULTS: The implementation of OHIP+ was associated with a significant immediate increase in the monthly rate of stimulant dispensing of 53.6 individuals per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.8 to 70.5 per 100,000) and a 14.2% (95% CI, 12.8% to 15.6%) relative percent increase in stimulant dispensing rates between December 2017 and March 2019 (1198.6 vs. 1368.7 per 100,000 population). The April 2019 OHIP+ program amendment was associated with an increase in monthly stimulant dispensing trends of 10.2 individuals per 100,000 population (95% CI, 5.0 to 15.5), with rates increasing 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2% to 8.7%) between March 2019 and March 2020 (1368.7 vs. 1470.8 per 100,000 population). These associations were most pronounced among males, children and youth living in the highest income neighbourhoods and individuals aged 20 to 24. CONCLUSION: A publicly-funded pharmacare program was associated with more children and youth being dispensed stimulants.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder→French-language works237,207→