4.0 Article

Osteoporosis prescribing trends in primary care: a population-based retrospective cohort study

期刊

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1463423612000114

关键词

bisphosphonates; family physician; osteoporosis; primary care

资金

  1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES)
  2. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)
  3. Canada Research Chair in Primary Care Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent and costly disease associated with aging. Previous studies have indicated low intervention rates in primary care; however, there is little research investigating the prescribing patterns of osteoporosis medications by primary-care physicians. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to examine trends in osteoporosis medication utilization in primary care between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009 in Ontario, Canada. All Ontario residents aged 65 years or older and eligible for public health coverage were included in the analysis (similar to 1.46 million residents in 2000, similar to 1.75 million residents in 2009). Results: Analysis of 10-year data indicates a trend toward higher utilization of osteoporosis medications among elderly primary-care patients. In 2000, 100 038 unique patients were prescribed an osteoporosis medication by a family physician; by 2009, this number increased to 301 679. Age-group analyses suggest an inverted U-shaped pattern, whereby utilization rates increase with advancing age and then decline for the oldest age groups. Utilization rates were the lowest for the 1001 age group. Conclusions: This study indicates increased utilization of osteoporosis-related medications among elderly primary-care patients over a recent 10-year time period. It is unclear whether the observed increase in utilization is due to higher rates of osteoporosis. Further research is needed to determine the appropriateness of this higher utilization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据