Changes in self-rated physical and mental health and life satisfaction associated with opioid and potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing in primary care older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in life satisfaction and physical and mental health associated with opioid and potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing (PIOP) among older adults. METHODS: Secondary data analysis from the Étude sur la Santé des Aînés (ESA)-Services study. The sample consisted of 945 older adults recruited in primary care with available health survey information linked to administrative medical record data. The exposure of interest was categorized as no prescription, opioid prescription, and PIOP, defined using the Beers criteria. Outcomes were self-rated physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction measured at baseline and at a 3-year follow-up. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine 3-year changes in outcomes as a function of opioid prescribing. Analyses were adjusted for covariates relating to health, psychosocial, and sociodemographic factors as well as duration/frequency of opioid prescribing. Analyses were conducted in the overall sample and in non-cancer patients. RESULTS: The sample had an average age of 73.1 years; the majority was Canadian-born (96.3%) while females made up over half (55.4%) the sample. Compared to not receiving an opioid prescription, PIOP was associated with a deterioration in physical health (ORadjusted = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.49, 0.86), but not mental health and life satisfaction. In non-cancer patients, PIOP was associated with poorer physical health (ORadjusted = 0.59; 95%CI = 0.40, 0.87) and opioid prescribing was marginally associated with improved life satisfaction (ORadjusted = 1.58; 95%CI = 0.96, 2.60). CONCLUSION: PIOP was associated with a deterioration in physical health. Patient-centred chronic pain management and the effect on health and well-being require further study in older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".