OA07.01. A naturopathic approach to the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a cost effectiveness analysis of a randomized multi-worksite trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic, multi-worksite, randomized trial comparing enhanced usual care (EUC; usual care plus biometric screening) to the addition of a naturopathic approach to CVD prevention (NC+EUC; an individualized package of lifestyle counseling and nutritional medicine). Biometric and self-report outcomes were collected at 0, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is determined from the societal and employer perspectives for participants who consented (before randomization) to make available their electronic employer sick leave and medical claims data. Of the 246 employees who consented to the trial, two-thirds also gave consent to make available their claims and sick leave data: 77 (63.1% of 122) randomized to EUC and 79 (63.7% of 124) randomized to NC+EUC. There were no statistically significant differences between those who did and did not give this consent across baseline characteristics, outcomes, or tendency to miss study visits. After one year NC+EUC resulted in a net decrease of 3.3 (CI: 1.7 -4.8) percentage points in 10-year CVD event risk (NNT=30) and 0.9 (CI: 0.2 – 1.6) points in CVD mortality risk (NNT=111). These risk reductions came with an average net savings of $1138 in societal costs and $1187 in employer costs. There was no change in quality-adjusted life-years across the study year. In this multi-worksite-based study, a naturopathic approach to the primary prevention of CVD provided significant reductions in CVD risk over usual care plus biometric screening. These risk reductions are achieved with cost savings to society and employers. Further research into naturopathic approaches to CVD risk reduction is justified.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".