3.8 Article

Medication use in community-dwelling older people: pharmacoepidemiology of psychotropic utilisation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 269-278

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/HC14269

关键词

Aged; depression; independent living; New Zealand; psychotropic drugs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: Psychotropic medications have a significant adverse drug event profile, particularly in older adults, and appropriate use is paramount. Patterns of prescribing in community-dwelling older adults in New Zealand remain unknown. AIM: This study aimed to determine the prevalence and the pattern of psychotropic use amongst community-dwelling older people in New Zealand and to identify any association between depressive symptomatology and psychotropic medication use. METHODS: Data were collected on the demographics, medication use and mood status of community-dwelling older adults from two New Zealand studies: the BRIGHT trial, which recruited potentially disabled participants (N=141) and the DeLLITE trial, which recruited potentially depressed participants (N=193). The prevalence and the pattern of psychotropic use were established and the gender, age and level of depression assessed using regression analysis. RESULTS: The use of any psychotropic medication was 28.9% in the BRIGHT trial and 43.5% in the DeLLITE trial. Antidepressants were the most commonly used psychotropic medication in the two studies, followed by hypnotics and sedatives. Psychotropic use was highly correlated with the presence of depressive symptoms in the BRIGHT trial and with female gender in the DeLLITE trial. Age was not associated with psychotropic medication use. In both studies, there is possible underdiagnosed, undertreated and inappropriately treated depression. DISCUSSION: The prevalence of psychotropic medication use is high in community-dwelling older people with disability and very high in community-dwelling older people with depressive symptoms, but varies by gender and level of depression.

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

3.8
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