MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011573531 · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1702115

Homeopathy in the NHS (National Health Service): Diluted but Active

2020· article· en· W3011573531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christel Lombaerts, Lois H Thomas, Jean Duckworth, Susan Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueHomeopathy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeopathyAlternative medicineMedicineService (business)Family medicineBusinessPathologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite being used satisfactorily by millions of people worldwide for a range of conditions, and the homeopathy community’s efforts to integrate homeopathy into NHS services, homeopathy provision has been declining. Aim: A pragmatic investigation of the integration of homeopathy in the UK NHS. Method: A nationwide postal survey among 144 members of the Faculty of Homeopathy mapped demographic data and integration of homeopathy services in the NHS, building on a Canadian integration model proposed by Boon in 2004. To enable a comprehensive understanding, 10 semi-structured interviews explored homeopaths' strategies to integrate homeopathy successfully into NHS services. Results: A sample of 72 respondents revealed that 27 were actively offering homeopathy treatment in their NHS service. According to the continuum proposed by Boon, UK services integrating homeopathy treatment are characterised as collaborative and multidisciplinary. Seven profiles of homeopathic providers in the NHS could be distinguished. In the interviews, several suggestions were put forward to restore the badly damaged image of homeopathy. The interviewees disagreed about whether integration was the preferred strategy to reach this goal, or even whether integration was desirable at all, but the accreditation of homeopathy within the healthcare system was deemed vital for the survival of homeopathy, even for the success of private practices. A lack of resources and the dwindling numbers of newly trained homeopathy practitioners were mentioned as a matter of concern. A major frustration was the negation of existing evidence for homeopathy, leaving homeopaths questioning what kind of evidence – from fundamental research or from outcome studies – would be the best way forward. Conclusion: Despite positive results regarding the integration of homeopathic services in the NHS, the information disclosed in the interviews revealed a concern about the survival of homeopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHomeopathySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207