Talk:Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme

message: This article needs serious cleanup - it is bristling with POV. --David.Mestel 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I had a go at it in June 2007, but as I said then, it still needs work. Unfortunately for me, I don't read German; the only English Language information on the PEK that I have found is the 2006 Peter Fisher article. (However, I find his 1994 article "Complementary medicine in Europe" interesting reading.) Pdfpdf 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that recent efforts by a number of people have achieved the needed "serious cleanup", and the various POV are now attributed to their sources. Pdfpdf 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The current introduction is misleading and implies that 7 million CHF were spent on a few literature reviews and on a field study that lasted only two years. Pages 19-21 of the PEK final report provide a description of the project organization, including a notion of fundamental conflicts among experts and a list of organizational difficulties. In addition, a time table from 1998 to 2005 shows how resources were distributed across time. Given these information the first paragraph of the page should be complemented as follows:
:“According to the final PEK Report, four years of project time (1998-2002) were needed to find consensus among experts on how to organize the project and for the same reasons the concept of the economic evaluation was not finalized before Oct. 2003. Literature reviews and field studies could therefore not be initiated before Sept 2002 and required consequently only a fraction of the originally available resources (pages 19-21 of the final PEK report)."
The text describing the results of the economic evaluations is suggestive and implies that complementary medicine is cheaper then conventional procedures. However, overall treatment costs of complementary physicians were simply lower because they were treating fewer and younger, cost favorable patients. A paper listed on the website of the Swiss Federal Office of Health provides a more in depth analysis of this issue and based on these findings the text needs to be changed:
:“The results of economic evaluations indicated no significant differences between complementary and conventional primary care for the overall treatment cost per patient. However, complementary practitioners treated lower numbers of patients and had a more cost-favorable patient population than conventional physicians. Additional analyses aimed at differences in cost structure reflected more patient-centred and individualized treatment modalities in complementary medicine.”
Additional text changes, also based on scientific data listed on the website of the Swiss Federal Office of Health are required the section describing part 1 of the project:
:“…. These patients tend to have a favorable attitude towards complementary medicine and to exhibit chronic and rated the severity of their diseases as more severe. However, generic general health assessments were not different between patient groups. Technical diagnostic …”
… and
:"…. On the basis of the statistics produced by the PEK, the question of whether complementary medicine should be regarded as being utilized in addition to or, rather, instead of conventional care cannot be definitively answered.
:However, additional research in this context provided empirical evidence that patients of complementary physicians were requiring more physician-based medical services than users of conventional medicine although indicators of general health were comparable between patient groups. Inappropriate utilization of health related resources of patients consulting complementary practices could not be excluded and it remained therefore debatable whether an inclusion of complementary in basic Swiss health insurance would be cost neutral”
Comment added by 85.3.136.46 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more edits are required ... 

message: Ok, lets do an additional section dedicated to results that were apparently published outside the final PEK report.
:OK. Where do you want to start? Pdfpdf 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of new section to article 

message: Controversy section should need to go. There is no controversy mentioned! Merely angry reaction from people who were pissed off ny the report. It needs to be pared down into a proper wikipedia style, no bullet points. It needs to be renamed "responses". And BLP info on the doctors involved needs to go too. Lobojo (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is disagreement between "school" medicine and complementary medicine over reality. School medicine demands very strict rational proof of effectiveness. People do not demand strict ration proof: they are satisfied when a procedure is perceived as helpful. Between these two groups, there is a gap of beliefs and therefore constant controversy. To make this wiki article balanced, both views are presented. I think it was a goal of PEK to narrow this gap: I do not think it was successful.  jmcw (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  V. Bad article indeed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/00305/02363/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527234509/http://www.unipublic.unizh.ch:80/magazin/gesundheit/2005/1996.html to http://www.unipublic.unizh.ch/magazin/gesundheit/2005/1996.html
*Added  tag to http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/00305/02363/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820063331/http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/1/145 to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/1/145
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified