Utilization of psychotropic drugs by patients consulting for sleeping disorders in homeopathic and conventional primary care settings: the EPI3 cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of sedative hypnotic drugs for sleeping disorders (SD) raises concerns, particularly among older people. This study compared utilization of conventional psychotropic drugs for SD among patients seeking care from general practitioners (GPs) who strictly prescribe conventional medications (GP-CM), regularly prescribe homeopathy in a mixed practice (GP-Mx), or are certified homeopathic GPs (GP-Ho). METHODS: This was a French population-based cohort study of GPs and their patients consulting for SD, informed through the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) questionnaire. Information on psychotropic drugs utilization was obtained from a standardized telephone interview at inclusion, one, three and 12 months. RESULTS: 346 patients consulting for SD were included. Patients in the GP-Ho group experienced more often severe SD (41.3%) than patients in the GP-CM group (24.3%). Adjusted multivariate analyses showed that patients who chose to be managed by GP-Ho were less likely to use psychotropic drugs over 12 months as opposed to the GP-CM group, with Odds ratio (OR) = 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14 to 0.42. Patients in the GP-Mx group also used less psychotropic drugs but the result was not statistically significant (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.39-1.16). Rates of clinical improvement of the SD did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SD who chose to consult GPs certified in homeopathy consumed less psychotropic drugs and had a similar evolution of their condition to patients treated with conventional medical management. This result may translate in a net advantage with reduction of adverse events related to psychotropic drugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".