ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2023
Pharmacoepidemiology and costs of medications dispensed during pregnancy: A retrospective population-based study.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Estimating the Prevalence of Prescribed Medication Use in Pregnancy with a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Drug safety · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing the role of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as a tool for addressing inequality in access to medications and allocation of public funds for pregnant women.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- How the structural determinants of health inequities impact access to prescription medication for pregnant women in Australia: a narrative review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Review
- Pharmacoepidemiology and costs of medications dispensed during pregnancy: A retrospective population-based study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the pharmacoepidemiology and costs associated with medications dispensed during pregnancy.
designPharmacoepidemiological study and cost analysis.
settingQueensland, Australia. POPULATION: All women who gave birth in Queensland between January 2013 and June 2018.
methodsWe used a whole-of-population linked administrative dataset, Maternity1000, to describe medications approved for public subsidy that were dispensed to 255 408 pregnant women. We describe the volume of medications dispensed and their associated costs from a Government and patient perspective.
main outcome measuresPrevalence of medication use; proportion of total dispensings; total medication costs in AUD 2020/21 ($1AUD = $0.67USD/£0.55GBP in December 2022).
resultsDuring pregnancy, 61% (95% CI 60.96-61.29%) of women were dispensed at least one medication approved for public subsidy. The mean number of items dispensed per pregnancy increased from 2.14 (95% CI 2.11-2.17) in 2013 to 2.47 (95% CI 2.44-2.51) in 2017; an increase of 15%. Furthermore, mean Government cost per dispensing increased by 41% from $21.60 (95% CI $20.99-$22.20) in 2013 to $30.44 (95% CI $29.38-$31.49) in 2017. These factors influenced the 53% increase in total Government expenditure observed for medication use during pregnancy between 2013 and 2017 ($2,834,227 versus $4,324,377); a disproportionate rise compared with the 17% rise in women's total out-of-pocket expenses observed over the same timeframe ($1,880,961 versus $2,204,415).
conclusionsPrevalence of medication use in pregnancy is rising and is associated with disproportionate and rapidly escalating cost implications for the Government.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.