A retrospective cohort study of prescription drug use among youth with intellectual/developmental disabilities in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) are known to have high rates of prescription drug use, particularly for psychotropic medications. This is of concern due to the many side effects associated with these medications and because of the risks of polypharmacy. In this paper we compare the most commonly dispensed drugs and all psychotropic medications for youth with IDD compared with youth without IDD. METHODS: Using population-level administrative health data over a 10-year period, this study examined medications dispensed to youth with an IDD aged 15-24 years compared with youth without an IDD. The most common medications dispensed and the number of youth they were dispensed to were determined. As well a wide variety of psychotropic medications were examined. RESULTS: There were a total of 20 591 youth with IDD and 1 293 791 youth without IDD identified. Youth with IDD had higher odds of being dispensed pain medications, amoxicillin, salbutamol, levothyroxine and all the psychotropic medications (antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, anti-adrenergic agents, mood stabilisers and stimulants). For youth with IDD, 6558 (31.85%) were dispensed two or more different psychotropic medications within a year, compared with 75 963 (5.87%) of youth without IDD. DISCUSSION: Compared to youth without IDD, youth with IDD had significantly higher odds of being dispensed most of the prescription medications studied, including all of the psychotropic medications. They were also twice as likely to be dispensed two or more medications from different classes of psychotropic drugs within the same year. These findings have important implications for the health of people with IDD and for their health care providers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".