MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416939275 · doi:10.2471/blt.25.293560

Workforce, regulation and capacity needed for integration of traditional medicine

2025· article· en· W4416939275 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian Lin, Rachel Canaway, Anne-Louise Carlton, Nadine Ijaz, Gupteswar Patel, Natéwindé Sawadogo, Hongguo Rong, Kabir Sheikh

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchCarleton University
FundersUniversity College London
KeywordsCorporate governanceQuality (philosophy)WorkforceHealthcare systemService delivery frameworkService (business)Conventional medicineHealth policyModern medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread use of traditional, complementary and integrative medicines (traditional medicine) across the world suggests that integration of traditional medicine into the formal health system is one strategy for extending universal health coverage (UHC). To improve access to and the quality of traditional medicine services will require attention to strengthening the traditional medicine workforce. The challenges associated with making such improvements should not be underestimated due to the many different practices, service delivery models and education systems for traditional medicine, as well as relevant policy and governance frameworks. Countries have adopted varying strategies to integrate traditional medicine into health systems to date. We consider how to strengthen and build capacity of the traditional medicine workforce so it might better contribute to the UHC agenda. We examine key issues and challenges for traditional medicine, and suggest analytical models for understanding the complexity inherent to integration of traditional medicine and making sense of different components of the traditional medicine workforce.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207