MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408150416 · doi:10.2196/63740

Linking Electronic Health Record Prescribing Data and Pharmacy Dispensing Records to Identify Patient-Level Factors Associated With Psychotropic Medication Receipt: Retrospective Study

2025· article· en· W4408150416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jillian H. Hurst, Alexis French, Michael Chrestensen, Benjamin A. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsMedical prescriptionMedicinePharmacyRetrospective cohort studyPharmacoepidemiologyElectronic prescribingPharmacistPolypharmacyFamily medicineMedical emergencyPediatricsEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pharmacoepidemiology studies using electronic health record (EHR) data typically rely on medication prescriptions to determine which patients have received a medication. However, such data do not affirmatively indicate whether these prescriptions have been filled. External dispensing databases can bridge this information gap; however, few established methods exist for linking EHR data and pharmacy dispensing records. Objective: We described a process for linking EHR prescribing data with pharmacy dispensing records from Surescripts. As a use case, we considered the prescriptions and resulting fills for psychotropic medications among pediatric patients. We evaluated how dispensing information affects identifying patients receiving prescribed medications and assessing the association between filling prescriptions and subsequent health behaviors. Methods: This retrospective study identified all new psychotropic prescriptions to patients younger than 18 years of age at Duke University Health System in 2021. We linked dispensing to prescribing data using proximate dates and matching codes between RxNorm concept unique identifiers and National Drug Codes. We described demographic, clinical, and service use characteristics to assess differences between patients who did versus did not fill prescriptions. We fit a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model to evaluate the predictability of a fill. We then fit time-to-event models to assess the association between whether a patient filled a prescription and a future provider visit. Results: We identified 1254 pediatric patients with a new psychotropic prescription. In total, 976 (77.8%) patients filled their prescriptions within 30 days of their prescribing encounters. Thus, we set 30 days as a cut point for defining a valid prescription fill. Patients who filled prescriptions differed from those who did not in several key factors. Those who did not fill had slightly higher BMIs, lived in more disadvantaged neighborhoods, were more likely to have public insurance or self-pay, and included a higher proportion of male patients. Patients with prior well-child visits or prescriptions from primary care providers were more likely to fill. Additionally, patients with anxiety diagnoses and those prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were more likely to fill prescriptions. The LASSO model achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.816. The time to the follow-up visit with the same provider was censored at 90 days after the initial encounter. Patients who filled prescriptions showed higher levels of follow-up visits. The marginal hazard ratio of a follow-up visit with the same provider was 1.673 (95% CI 1.463-1.913) for patients who filled their prescriptions. Using the LASSO model as a propensity-based weight, we calculated the weighted hazard ratio as 1.447 (95% CI 1.257-1.665). Conclusions: Systematic differences existed between patients who did versus did not fill prescriptions. Incorporating external dispensing databases into EHR-based studies informs medication receipt and associated health outcomes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207