Decomposing the drivers of polypharmacy disparities in United States adults with and without physical disabilities.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tanya Goyal, Hao Wang, Lakshmi Sraddha Pedaprolu, Sophia Mitra, Usha Sambamoorthi
{"title":"Decomposing the drivers of polypharmacy disparities in United States adults with and without physical disabilities.","authors":"Tanya Goyal, Hao Wang, Lakshmi Sraddha Pedaprolu, Sophia Mitra, Usha Sambamoorthi","doi":"10.1016/j.dhjo.2026.102174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications, is a growing public health concern, particularly among adults with physical disabilities. Individuals with physical disabilities often experience a higher burden of chronic conditions and greater healthcare needs, increasing risk of polypharmacy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine differences in polypharmacy between adults with/without physical disabilities and identify the extent to which observable clinical, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors explain these differences.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a cross-sectional study using the 2022 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative dataset of the U.S. non-institutionalized population. Adults aged ≥18 years (N = 11,242) were included. Polypharmacy was defined as the concurrent use of medications from ≥6 therapeutic drug classes during a MEPS interview round (approximately 180-days). Physical disability was defined using self-reported limitations in physical functioning. We applied Rao-Scott Chi-square tests, survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression, and nonlinear Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition to assess disparities and quantify contributing factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Polypharmacy was more prevalent among adults with physical disabilities (51.9%) compared to those without (9.0%, p < 0.001). In fully adjusted models, physical disability remained significantly associated with polypharmacy (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70, p = 0.038). Decomposition analysis revealed that 80.9% of the disparity was explained by measured characteristics, with health status and socioeconomic factors contributing the largest proportions, whereas 19.1% remained unexplained.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adults with physical disabilities experience substantially higher rates of polypharmacy, largely explained by differences in health status and socioeconomic characteristics. These findings highlight potential targets for interventions to optimize medication use and reduce disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49300,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"102174"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2026.102174","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications, is a growing public health concern, particularly among adults with physical disabilities. Individuals with physical disabilities often experience a higher burden of chronic conditions and greater healthcare needs, increasing risk of polypharmacy.

Objectives: To examine differences in polypharmacy between adults with/without physical disabilities and identify the extent to which observable clinical, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors explain these differences.

Method: This is a cross-sectional study using the 2022 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative dataset of the U.S. non-institutionalized population. Adults aged ≥18 years (N = 11,242) were included. Polypharmacy was defined as the concurrent use of medications from ≥6 therapeutic drug classes during a MEPS interview round (approximately 180-days). Physical disability was defined using self-reported limitations in physical functioning. We applied Rao-Scott Chi-square tests, survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression, and nonlinear Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition to assess disparities and quantify contributing factors.

Results: Polypharmacy was more prevalent among adults with physical disabilities (51.9%) compared to those without (9.0%, p < 0.001). In fully adjusted models, physical disability remained significantly associated with polypharmacy (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70, p = 0.038). Decomposition analysis revealed that 80.9% of the disparity was explained by measured characteristics, with health status and socioeconomic factors contributing the largest proportions, whereas 19.1% remained unexplained.

Conclusions: Adults with physical disabilities experience substantially higher rates of polypharmacy, largely explained by differences in health status and socioeconomic characteristics. These findings highlight potential targets for interventions to optimize medication use and reduce disparities.

分解美国有和没有身体残疾的成年人中多种药物差异的驱动因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Disability and Health Journal
Disability and Health Journal HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
134
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Disability and Health Journal is a scientific, scholarly, and multidisciplinary journal for reporting original contributions that advance knowledge in disability and health. Topics may be related to global health, quality of life, and specific health conditions as they relate to disability. Such contributions include: • Reports of empirical research on the characteristics of persons with disabilities, environment, health outcomes, and determinants of health • Reports of empirical research on the Systematic or other evidence-based reviews and tightly conceived theoretical interpretations of research literature • Reports of empirical research on the Evaluative research on new interventions, technologies, and programs • Reports of empirical research on the Reports on issues or policies affecting the health and/or quality of life for persons with disabilities, using a scientific base.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书