Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 707

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use Among Elderly Home Care Patients in Europe

Open access
Fialová, Daniela·2005·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly patients have been used in the past decade in large US epidemiological surveys to identify populations at risk and specifically target risk-management strategies. In contrast, in Europe little information is available about potentially inappropriate medication use and is based on small studies with uncertain generalizability. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and associated factors of potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in European countries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of 2707 elderly patients receiving home care (mean [SD] age, 82.2 [ 7.2] years) representatively enrolled in metropolitan areas of the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Patients were prospectively assessed between September 2001 and January 2002 using the Minimum Data Set in Home Care instrument. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use was documented using all expert panels criteria for community-living elderly persons (Beers and McLeod). Patient-related characteristics independently associated with inappropriate medication use were identified with a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: Combining all 3 sets of criteria, we found that 19.8% of patients in the total sample used at least 1 inappropriate medication; using older 1997 criteria it was 9.8% to 10.9%. Substantial differences were documented between Eastern Europe (41.1% in the Czech Republic) and Western Europe (mean 15.8%, ranging from 5.8% in Denmark to 26.5% in Italy). Potentially inappropriate medication use was associated with patient's poor economic situation (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-2.36), polypharmacy (RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62- 2.22), anxiolytic drug use (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.51-2.15), and depression (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.55). Negatively associated factors were age 85 years and older (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92) and living alone (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89). The odds of potentially inappropriate medication use significantly increased with the number of associated factors (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in potentially inappropriate medication use exist between European countries and might be a consequence of different regulatory measures, clinical practices, or inequalities in socioeconomic background. Since financial resources and selected patient-related characteristics are associated with such prescribing, specific educational strategies and regulations should reflect these factors to improve prescribing quality in elderly individuals in Europe.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.293.11.1348

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 707

Metadata

Authors
Fialová, D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2005-03-16
Volume
293
Issue
11
Pages
1348
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2155277441
Cited by
707
References
0
FWCI
16.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use Among Elderly Home Care Patients in Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.293.11.1348
The paper
Fialová, D. (2005). Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use Among Elderly Home Care Patients in Europe. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.11.1348

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.