Back

Prescribing differences among older adults with differing health cover and socioeconomic status: a cohort study

Prendergast, C.; Flood, M.; Murry, L. T.; Clyne, B.; Fahey, T.; Moriarty, F.

2023-04-03 primary care research
10.1101/2023.03.30.23287967 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionAs health reforms move Ireland from a mixed public-private system toward universal healthcare, it is important to understand variations in prescribing practice for patients with differing health cover and socioeconomic status. This study aims to determine how prescribing patterns for patients aged [≥]65 years in primary care in Ireland differ between patients with public and private health cover. MethodsThis was an observational study using anonymised data collected as part of a larger study from 44 general practices in Ireland (2011-2018). Data were extracted from electronic records relating to demographics and prescribing for patients aged [≥]65 years. The cohort was divided between those with public health cover (via the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme) and those without. Standardised rates of prescribing were calculated for pre-specified drug classes. We also analysed the number of medications, polypharmacy, and trends over time between groups, using multilevel linear regression adjusting for age and sex. ResultsOverall, 42,456 individuals were included (56% female). Most were covered by the GMS scheme (62%, n=26,490). The rate of prescribing in all medication classes was higher for GMS patients compared to non-GMS patients, with the greatest difference in benzodiazepine anxiolytics. The mean number of unique medications prescribed to GMS patients was 10.9 (SD 5.9), and 8.1 (SD 5.8) for non-GMS patients. The number of unique medications prescribed to both GMS and non-GMS cohorts increased over time. The increase was steeper in the GMS group where the mean number of medications prescribed increased by 0.67 medications/year. The rate of increase was 0.13 (95%CI 0.13, 0.14) medications/year lower for non-GMS patients, a statistically significant difference. ConclusionOur study found a significantly larger number of medicines were prescribed to patients with public health cover, compared to those without. Increasing medication burden and polypharmacy among older adults may be accelerated for those of lower socioeconomic status. These findings may inform planning for moves towards universal health care, and this would provide an opportunity to evaluate the effect of expanding entitlement on prescribing and medicines use.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.9%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
22.6%
3
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.3%
5
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
7
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
9
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
10
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
11
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
12
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
13
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
14
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
15
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
16
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
17
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
18
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
20
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
21
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
22
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
23
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
24
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%