Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Our first issue of 2007 introduces a redesign of the journal's cover and the page layout for articles, together with a changed referencing system.The new year also offers an opportunity for us to welcome two new members to the editorial board and elicit from our readers further help in developing the journal.The new design replaces the two-column page layout to a single column presentation of papers and moves from the Vancouver to the Harvard system of referencing.We hope these changes make the content of articles more accessible to readers and welcome comments.The two new editorial board members, Stirling Bryan (Birmingham, England) and Michael Shields (Melbourne, Australia), complement the strengths of our existing board with their expertise in economic evaluation and in labour markets and the determinants of health.Economic evaluation is of great importance to the journal and our hope is that we will continue to receive papers that develop the methods of appraisal, which in turn will help improve the techniques of technology assessment and the prioritisation of health expenditure.Although labour typically consumes 60-70% of health care budgets and the corpus of knowledge in labour economics is considerable, the development of this issue in health care has been slow.Current policy reforms, for instance payment for performance (P4P), are social experiments that will, hopefully, be evaluated carefully.Health care reforms designed and implemented inefficiently impose opportunity costs on patients and, like inefficient medical practice, deny patients health care from which they could benefit.In both these areas, economic evaluation and workforce issues, the ubiquitous problem of translating evidence into practice remains.It has been estimated that about 45% of medical interventions are of unknown effectiveness (BMJ Publishing, 2005).Consequently, it is unsurprising that there are well documented and significant variations in clinical practice.However much that is known to improve care is not delivered to patients, thereby imposing avoidable morbidity and mortality.This is so in all countries and the challenge for economists is how can efficiency inducing change be better implemented by redesigned incentives?The effective mitigation of well-recognised policy problems requires the development of greater 'scepticaemia' in the health economics profession.Scepticaemia has been defined by two public health physicians as 'a condition of low infectivity.A Medical School education is likely to confer lifelong immunity' (Skrabanek and McCormick, 1992).We would welcome more contentious and constructive debate in Health Economics and would like to repeat our invitation for readers to submit short editorials (up to 1200 words and 10 references) that not only highlight subject areas and methods suitable for more vigorous development but also critique the status quo and help us all to develop our methods of analysis and improve patient health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,046 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,021 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».