MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389571135 · doi:10.3389/fped.2023.1282845

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antidepressant and antipsychotic use among children and adolescents: a population-based study

2023· article· en· W4389571135 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tony Antoniou, Kathleen Pajer, William Gardner, Melanie Penner, Yona Lunsky, Mina Tadrous, Muhammad Mamdani, Peter Gozdyra, David N. Juurlink, Tara Gomes

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of OttawaHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineAntipsychoticPsychiatryAnxietyPandemicMedical prescriptionAntidepressantDepression (economics)Mental healthPopulationDefined daily dosePediatricsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineEnvironmental healthPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increases in the prevalence of depression, anxiety and behavioural problems among children and youth. Less well understood is the influence of the pandemic on antidepressant and antipsychotic use among children. This is important, as it is possible that antidepressants and antipsychotics were used as a "stop-gap" measure to treat mental health symptoms when in-person access to outpatient care and school-based supportive services was disrupted. Furthermore, antipsychotics and antidepressants have been associated with harm in children and youth. We examined trends in dispensing of these medications two years following the pandemic among children 18 years of age and under in Ontario, Canada. Methods: We conducted a population-based time-series study of antidepressant and antipsychotic medication dispensing to children and adolescents ≤18 years old between September 1, 2014, and March 31, 2022. We measured monthly population-adjusted rates of antidepressant and antipsychotics obtained from the IQVIA Geographic Prescription Monitor (GPM) database. We used structural break analyses to identify the pandemic month(s) when changes in the dispensing of antidepressants and antipsychotics occurred. We used interrupted time series models to quantify changes in dispensing following the structural break and compare observed and expected use of these drugs. Results: Overall, we found higher-than-expected dispensing of antidepressants and antipsychotics in children and youth. Specifically, we observed an immediate step decrease in antidepressant dispensing associated with a structural break in April 2020 (-55.8 units per 1,000 individuals; 95% confidence intervals [CI] CI: -117.4 to 5.8), followed by an increased monthly trend in the rate of antidepressant dispensing of 13.0 units per 1,000 individuals (95% CI: 10.2-15.9). Antidepressant dispensing was consistently greater than predicted from September 2020 onward. Antipsychotic dispensing increased immediately following a June 2020 structural break (26.4 units per 1,000 individuals; 95% CI: 15.8-36.9) and did not change appreciably thereafter. Antipsychotic dispensing was higher than predicted at all time points from June 2020 onward. Conclusion: We found higher-than-expected dispensing of antidepressants and antipsychotics in children and youth. These increases were sustained through nearly two years of observation and are especially concerning in light of the potential for harm with the long-term use of antipsychotics in children. Further research is required to understand the clinical implications of these findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207