Observational studyInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
Effectiveness of polypharmacy reduction policy in Japan: nationwide retrospective observational study.
Observational study in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between polypharmacy and the risk of requiring long-term care among community-dwelling older residents: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- Literature Review of Studies Using the National Database of the Health Insurance Claims of Japan (NDB): Limitations and Strategies in Using the NDB for Research.JMA journal · 2024Review
- Comparing prevalence and types of potentially inappropriate medications among patient groups in a post-acute and secondary care hospital.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Nationwide Long-Term Evaluation of Polypharmacy Reduction Policies Focusing on Older Adults in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of pharmacist intervention for deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications: a prospective observational study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Polypharmacy is an important global health issue. In Japan, an amended policy has been implemented since April 2016 to offer incentives that allow claiming a payment of approximately 22.5 US$ per patient to hospitals and clinics that succeed to reduce two or more medications. However, there is no evidence on the nationwide effectiveness of polypharmacy reduction policy. Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of the polypharmacy reduction policy in Japan using nationwide outpatient prescription fee reimbursement claims data in Open Data of the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan. Method This nationwide retrospective observational study was conducted over 3 years (April 2015 to March 2018). The primary outcome was the polypharmacy reduction ratio calculated by the polypharmacy proportion. Factors associated with policy effectiveness were identified by performing a multiple linear regression analysis using independent variables. Results After implementing the new policy, a 7.3 % polypharmacy reduction ratio was observed, particularly in the elderly (8.2 %). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the proportion of elderly residents (aged ≥65 years), number of hospitals per 100,000 residents, and number of clinics per 100,000 residents were statistically significantly associated with this reduction. Conclusion The polypharmacy reduction policy indicated an association with polypharmacy reduction in Japan. The proportion of elderly residents and availability of hospitals and clinics are important factors to enhance the effectiveness of the polypharmacy reduction policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34748135What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.