We performed a descriptive analysis in Ontario from April 2011 to March 2016 using the Electronic Medical Records Primary Care database linked to other health administrative data sets at ICES. We determined antibiotic prescribing rates (per 100 patient–physician encounters) for 23 common conditions and estimated rates of unnecessary prescribing using predefined expected prescribing rates, both stratified by condition and patient age group.

The study included 341 physicians, 204 313 patients and 499 570 encounters. The rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for included conditions was 15.4% overall and was 17.6% for those less than 2 years of age, 18.6% for those aged 2–18, 14.5% for those aged 19–64 and 13.0% for those aged 65 or more. The highest unnecessary prescribing rates were observed for acute bronchitis (52.6%), acute sinusitis (48.4%) and acute otitis media (39.3%). The common cold, acute bronchitis, acute sinusitis and miscellaneous nonbacterial infections were responsible for 80% of the unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Of all antibiotics prescribed, 12.0% were for conditions for which they are never indicated, and 12.3% for conditions for which they are rarely indicated. In children, 25% of antibiotics were for conditions for which they are never indicated (e.g., common cold).

Antibiotics were prescribed unnecessarily for 15.4% of included encounters in a Canadian primary care setting. Almost one-quarter of antibiotics were prescribed for conditions for which they are rarely or never indicated. These findings should guide safe reductions in the use of antibiotics for the common cold, bronchitis and sinusitis.

In this cross-sectional analysis, we determined the risk of matching to one’s first-choice discipline in CaRMS by applicant gender and year, for all Canadian medical students who participated in the first iteration of the R-1 match for the years 2013 to 2019. We analyzed data in 3 categories of disciplines according to CaRMS classifications: family medicine, nonsurgical disciplines and surgical disciplines. We excluded disciplines with fewer than 10 applicants.

Match results were available for 20 033 participants, of whom 11 078 (55.3%) were female. Overall, female applicants were significantly more likely to match to their first-choice discipline (relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.04). After adjustment for match year and stratification by discipline categories, we found that female applicants were more likely to match to family medicine as their first choice (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03–1.05) and less likely to match to a first-choice surgical discipline (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91–1.00) than their male peers. There was no significant difference between the genders in matching to one’s first-choice nonsurgical discipline (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.03).

These results suggest an association between an applicant’s gender and the probability of matching to one’s first-choice discipline. The possibility of gender bias in the application process for residency programs should be further evaluated and monitored.

In 2016, we identified all Canadian chiropractors’ websites that provided information on vaccination by extracting details from the regulatory college website for each province using the search engine on their "find a chiropractor" page. We assessed the quality of information using the Web Resource Rating Tool (scores range from 0% [worst] to 100% [best]), determined whether vaccination was portrayed in a positive, neutral or negative manner, and conducted thematic analysis of vaccination content. We revisited all identified websites in 2019 to explore for changes to posted vaccination material.

In July 2016, of 3733 chiropractic websites identified, 94 unique websites provided information on vaccination: 59 (63%) gave negative messaging, 19 (20%) were neutral and 16 (17%) were positive. The quality of vaccination content on the websites was generally poor, with a median Web Resource Rating Tool score of 19%. We identified 4 main themes: there are alternatives to vaccination, vaccines are harmful, evidence regarding vaccination and health policy regarding vaccination. From 2012 to 2016, there was 1 Canadian newspaper story concerning antivaccination statements by chiropractors, whereas 51 news articles were published on this topic between 2017 and 2019. In April 2019, 45 (48%) of the 94 websites we had identified in 2016 had removed all vaccination content or had been discontinued.

In 2016, a minority of Canadian chiropractors provided vaccination information on their websites, the majority of which portrayed vaccination negatively. After substantial national media attention, about half of all vaccination material on chiropractors’ websites was removed within several years.

We conducted a cross-sectional study among public drug plan beneficiaries residing in all provinces except Quebec. We used the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System to identify all drugs dispensed to beneficiaries of public drug programs in 2016/17. We stratified the cohort into 2 groups: high–drug-cost beneficiaries (top 5% of beneficiaries based on annual costs) and other beneficiaries (remaining 95%). For each group, we reported total drug costs, prevalence of high-cost claims (> $1000), median number of drugs, proportion of beneficiaries aged 65 or more, the 10 most costly reimbursed medications and the 10 medications most commonly reimbursed. We reported estimates overall and by province.

High–drug-cost beneficiaries accounted for nearly half (46.5%) of annual spending, with an average annual spend of $14 610 per beneficiary, compared to $1570 among other beneficiaries. The median number of drugs dispensed was higher among high–drug-cost beneficiaries than among other beneficiaries (13 [interquartile range (IQR) 7–19] v. 8 [IQR 4–13]), and a much larger proportion of high–drug-cost beneficiaries than other beneficiaries received at least 1 high-cost claim (40.9% v. 0.6%). Long-term medications were the most commonly used medications for both groups, whereas biologics and antivirals were the most costly medications for high–drug-cost beneficiaries.

High–drug-cost beneficiaries were characterized by the use of expensive medications and polypharmacy relative to other beneficiaries. Interventions and policies to help reduce spending need to consider both of these factors.