MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229040464 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v14n4p82

General Practitioners’ Attitudes toward Traditional Indonesian Herbal Medicine and Integrative Care in the Universal Health Coverage System

2022· article· en· W4229040464 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yen Yen Sally Rahayu, Tetsuya Araki, Dian Rosleine, Raissa Manika Purwaningtyas

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsIndonesianHealth careMedicineNursingQualitative researchGlobal Positioning SystemPerceptionIntegrative medicineAlternative medicineFamily medicineTraditional medicineMedical educationPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementation of the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in Indonesia has created renewed momentum for integrating traditional Indonesian herbal medicine (TIHM) in healthcare delivery under the national health insurance program (NHI). At present, little is known about the attitudes of conventional healthcare practitioners towards the clinical use of TIHM. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of general practitioners (GPs) towards TIHM use in conventional care and their perception of the integration of TIHM in the NHI. A total of 30 GPs from 28 conventional health facilities were purposively selected to participate in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through administered-questionnaire and interviews. The majority of participating GPs demonstrated a favourable view towards TIHM role in conventional care and the potential integration of TIHM under the NHI. Being used as an adjunct therapy in the conventional treatment of chronic diseases, including degenerative disease and metabolic syndrome, and in palliative care, seemed to be the most promising areas to emphasize TIHM role in conventional care in the anticipated integration. However, only a few GPs had formally prescribed TIHM to their patient. The barriers of TIHM use in their practice include knowledge gap, unclear regulatory procedure, unreliable provision of TIHM and exclusion of TIHM in the NHI. While the GPs accepted the idea of integrative care under the NHI, to achieve an institutional integration, their knowledge base in TIHM must be improved while also addressing regulation, development of TIHM’s formal list, and issues of safety of TIHM to ensure evidence-based practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207