Inappropriate Medication Use and Health Outcomes in the Elderly

Division of Pharmaceutical Policy and Evaluative Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NS 27599, USA.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (Impact Factor: 4.57). 12/2004; 52(11):1934-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52522.x
Source: PubMed


Inappropriate medication use is a major problem for the elderly. Although increasing attention has been paid to inappropriate prescription medication use, most previous research has been limited to the investigation of prevalence and trends. Few studies provide the empirical evidence for the adverse effect of inappropriate medication use on health outcomes at the national level. This study is the first attempt to assess the relationship between inappropriate prescription use and health status for the elderly in the United States. Based on the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, inappropriate medication use in a national representative elderly population was first identified using Beers criteria. A survey type of ordered probit model was then estimated to quantify the effect of inappropriate drug use on patient self-perceived health status measured using a five-point scale (poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent). After controlling for a set of possible confounding factors, it was found that individuals using inappropriate medications in Round 1 were more likely than those not using inappropriate medications to report poorer health status in Round 2. Other risk factors for poor health status include a higher number of prescriptions, being black, having low education, and having one or more chronic diseases. This study provides strong evidence of a significant adverse effect of inappropriate medication use on patient health status. These findings lend partial support to the use of Beers criteria in assessing the quality of prescribing and the appropriateness of medication use in the elderly population.

Download full-text


Available from: Dale B Christensen,
  • Source
    • "Hence, abusing small amounts of substances can lead to intoxication and organ damage (Baldoni et al., 2010). Thus, decline in body tolerance in older adults can aggravate medical and psychological problems (McGrath et al., 2005), which in turn increase the tendency of polypharmacy (Simoni-Wastila & Yang, 2006), physician visits and medication misuse (Fu et al., 2004; Han et al., 2009). However, substance abuse is on the rise among the elderly and the sensation of being in the later stage of life reduces the tendency to stop abusing substances (Dowling et al., 2007; Han et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study aims to determine the association between medical treatments and the risk of substance abuse in the elderly with dementia. The research was conducted on Malaysian elderly who were demented and non-institutionalized. The study was a national cross sectional survey that included 1210 non-institutionalized Malaysian elderly with dementia. The Multiple Logistic Regression Model was applied to predict the risk of substance abuse in respondents. The prevalence of substance abuse was approximately 57.9% among subjects. Furthermore, medical treatment (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.37–2.59), ethnic non-Malay (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.12–1.84) and male sex (OR = 4.64; 95% CI: 3.42–6.29) significantly increased substance abuse after adjusting for socio-demographic factors. The results showed that age, marital status and educational level did not predict significantly the risk of substance abuse in samples (p > 0.05). It was concluded that male sex, medical treatment and ethnic non-Malay can increase the risk of substance abuse in the older people with dementia.
    Journal of Substance Use 04/2014; 20(1). DOI:10.3109/14659891.2014.909893 · 0.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The number of medications consumed is the main risk factor of inappropriate medication use and ADE [11, 12]. The relationship between number of prescriptions and ADE risk is strong [13, 14]. Our study found much higher average prescriptions in the study population than previous study. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of herbal medicine is popular among cancer patients. This study aimed to explore the coprescription of CHM and WM among prostate cancer patients in Taiwan. This cross-sectional retrospective study used a population-based database containing one million beneficiaries of National Health Insurance. Claims and prescriptions were analyzed. In 2007, 218 (22.4%) prostate cancer patients were CHM users. Among CHM users, 200 (91.7%) patients with 5618 (79.5%) CHM prescriptions were on coprescription of CHM and WM. A total of 484 types of CHM and 930 types of WM were used. The most commonly used CHMs on coprescription were Shu Jing Huo Xue Tang, Ma Zi Ren Wan, and Xue Fu Zhu Yu Tang. The most commonly used WMs on coprescription were magnesium oxide, amlodipine, and aspirin. The average number of prescriptions per user per year was 261.2 versus 151.7 in all (P < 0.001), 123.6 versus 76.9 in WM (P = 0.033), and 34.8 versus 5.1 in CHM (P < 0.001) for patients with and without coprescription, respectively. In conclusion, use of CHM among prostate cancer patients was popular in Taiwan. Most CHMs were used with WM concurrently. The potential drug-herb interactions should be investigated, especially for patients with more prescriptions.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 01/2012; 2012:147015. DOI:10.1155/2012/147015 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The use of multiple medications, polypharmacy, leads to increased hospitalisation (Flaherty et al. 2000). In fact, medication-related problems account for 10% to 36% of hospitalisations in the US (ASCP Update 2000; Fu et al. 2004). A complex medication regimen may affect older adults' ability to self-administer their medications (Hinkin et al. 2002, Swan et al. 1998), requiring the assistance of a caregiver with day-to-day medication management. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study builds on earlier work on medication administration hassles, minor daily irritants experienced by family caregivers of older relatives, by investigating the feasibility of using the Family Caregiver Medication Administration Hassles Scale (FCMAHS) for use with Mexican American caregivers. Appropriate medication administration is a critical factor in the effective management of chronic illness. When medication regimens are managed on behalf of an older care recipient, especially those with numerous medications for a variety of conditions, the caregiving task is even more complex. Relying on family support is common for older Mexican Americans. Despite this, there is little known about how Mexican Americans are handling their caregiving duties at home. A non-experimental methodological design was used to assess the psychometric properties of the FCMAHS with Mexican Americans, chosen because they are a rapidly growing population in the US. A purposive sample of 239 Mexican American adult caregivers, recruited in Dallas and San Diego, completed a brief biographical survey and the version of the FCMAHS created for Mexican Americans, i.e., the FCMAHS-MA. Principal axis factoring with orthogonal rotation was used to extract six factors which accounted for 53% of the variance in total scores - initial information seeking, safety issues, advanced information acquisition, scheduling, daily routine and prescription filling. Reliability estimates for the factors (alpha) ranged from 0.70-0.90. Test-retest reliability across a three-week interval was r = 0.64. The FCMAHC-MA shows promise as a guide for future caregiving intervention studies on family medication management for older relatives; however, it would benefit from refinement in future studies. Understanding family caregivers' hassles with medication administration is important because these hassles can accumulate and lead to caregiver strain. Culturally relevant intervention depends on accurate measurement of the hassles experienced by these caregivers.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 07/2009; 18(18):2596-603. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02752.x · 1.26 Impact Factor
Show more