Characteristics of patients consulting their regular primary care physician according to their prescribing preferences for homeopathy and complementary medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Homeopathic care has not been well documented in terms of its impact on patients' utilization of drugs or other complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). The objective of this study was to describe and compare patients who visit physicians in general practice (GPs) who prescribe only conventional medicines (GP-CM), regularly prescribe homeopathy within a mixed practice (GP-Mx), or are certified homeopathic GPs (GP-Ho). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The EPI3-LASER study was a nationwide observational survey of a representative sample of GPs and their patients from across France. Physicians recorded their diagnoses and prescriptions on participating patients who completed a self-questionnaire on socio-demographics, lifestyle, quality of life Short Form 12 (SF-12) and the complementary and alternative medicine beliefs inventory (CAMBI). RESULTS: A total of 6379 patients (participation rate 73.1%) recruited from 804 GP practices participated in this survey. Patients attending a GP-Ho were slightly more often female with higher education than in the GP-CM group and had markedly healthier lifestyle. They did not differ greatly in their comorbidities or quality of life but exhibited large differences in their beliefs in holistic medicine and natural treatments, and in their attitude toward participating to their own care. Similar but less striking observations were made in patients of the GP-Mx group. CONCLUSION: Patients seeking care with a homeopathic GP did not differ greatly in their socio-demographic characteristics but more so by their healthier lifestyle and positive attitude toward CAM. Further research is needed to explore the directionality of those associations and to assess the potential economic benefits of homeopathic management in primary care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".