MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388730033 · doi:10.1186/s12916-023-03133-w

The association between cognitive ability and opioid prescribing in vulnerable older adults with chronic pain in ambulatory care: a secondary data analysis using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

2023· article· en· W4388730033 on OpenAlexafffund
Ulrike Muench, Kyung Mi Kim, Zachary Zimmer, Todd B. Monroe

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineChronic painOdds ratioMedical Expenditure Panel SurveyDementiaConfidence intervalOpioidAmbulatoryPhysical therapyInternal medicineDiseaseHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vulnerable older adults living with Alzheimer's disease or Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (AD/ADRD) and chronic pain generally receive fewer pain medications than individuals without AD/ADRD, especially in nursing homes. Little is known about pain management in older adults with AD/ADRD in the community. The aim of the study was to examine opioid prescribing patterns in individuals with chronic pain by levels of cognitive ability in ambulatory care. METHODS: We used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), years 2002-2017, and identified three levels of cognitive impairment: no cognitive impairment (NCI), individuals reporting cognitive impairment (CI) without an AD/ADRD diagnosis, and individuals with a diagnosis of AD/ADRD. We examined any receipt of an opioid prescription and the number of opioid prescriptions using a logistic and negative binomial regression adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics and stratifying by three types of chronic pain (any chronic pain, severe chronic pain, and chronic pain identified through ICD 9/10 chronic pain diagnoses). RESULTS: Among people with any chronic pain, adjusted odds of receiving an opioid for people with CI (OR 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.31-1.52) and AD/ADRD (OR 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.45) were higher compared to NCI. Among people with chronic pain ICD 9/10 conditions, the odds of receiving an opioid were also higher for those with CI (OR 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.34-1.56) and AD/ADRD (OR 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.78) compared to NCI. Among those with severe chronic pain, people with CI were more likely to receive an opioid (OR 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.27) relative to NCI (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.75-1.06). People with AD/ADRD experiencing severe chronic pain were not more likely to receive an opioid compared to the NCI group. Adjusted predicted counts of opioid prescriptions showed more opioids in CI and AD/ADRD in all chronic pain cohorts, with the largest numbers of opioid prescriptions in the severe chronic pain and ICD 9/10 diagnoses groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest increased opioid use in people living with CI and AD/ADRD in the ambulatory care setting and potentially indicate that these individuals either require more analgesics or that opioids may be overprescribed. Further research is needed to examine pain management in this vulnerable population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207