Improving the evaluation of homeopathy: economic considerations and impact on health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The financial crisis of health insurance systems sometimes drives public policy-makers to take precipitate action dominated by economic imperatives. The question addressed here consists in defining homeopathy's scope of intervention, its place in health care strategies, recourse to treatment, and especially economic data appraising homeopathy's impact on expenditures and outlay covered by health insurance in France. METHOD: We used the General Evaluation Model to define the study (to whom is the evaluation made, situations, criteria, measurement of these criteria, quality and precision). RESULTS: The main results are in terms of costs, as follows: * For reimbursable medicines the public sales price of homeopathic products is a quarter of the average. * The total reimbursement for a prescription of allopathic products is three times more than for a prescription of homeopathic products. * Homeopathic physicians incur annual reimbursement outlays which are half those of general practitioners. The differences observed cannot be explained by the patient profile or the diseases treated. Furthermore, a study carried out in France showed that 87% of patients whose physicians had prescribed homeopathic treatment did not see another physician for the same problem. CONCLUSIONS: Once basic analysis has been done, so that the economic and epidemiological impact of a certain health strategy can be determined, it is necessary to proceed further, helping healthcare providers and public authorities to make decisions. Various possibilities exist and should be investigated.
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 | 0.051 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".