MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414603207 · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_833_24

Analysis of Iran’s health service financing policies for the elderly: Applying David Easton’s political system model

2025· review· en· W4414603207 on OpenAlexaff
Rahim Khodayari‐Zarnaq, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Behzad Najafi, Bashir Azimi Nayebi, Rouhollah Yaghoubi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Health Promotion · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfarePoliticsHealth careHealth servicesService (business)Order (exchange)Process (computing)Plan (archaeology)Health policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Countries around the world are experiencing growth in their older populations. In order to improve future planning, it is important to examine existing financing policies for this demographic group as the demand for health services increases with age. In this study, using David Easton's model of the political system, we have used this method to examine the main existing documents relating to health care funding policies for the elderly. The analysis has been conducted by grouping the objectives of the document by year and their inputs and by presenting the policy process and its outputs. Of the 24 documents identified in the preliminary studies and in the expert interviews, four documents were analyzed in the final phase, including the Act to Promote the Status and Grant of Welfare and Culture Facilities to the Over-60s, the National Document, the National Program for Reforming the Healthcare and Welfare System, and the Dignified Status of Iranian Older Persons. We have found that the National Plan for the Elderly was the key policy for the elderly because it was developed in a comprehensive and unified field of old age and was waiting to be implemented.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and Health PromotionSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207