4.3 Article

The Evaluation of Professional Divisions of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Taiwan through Patient Visit Records of 2012

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15091992

关键词

traditional Chinese medicine; National Health Insurance; professional divisions

资金

  1. National Health Insurance Administration under the Ministry of Health and Welfare
  2. NHIRD under the National Health Research Institute
  3. National Science Council [NSC 100-2410-H-010-001-MY3]
  4. Taipei Veterans General Hospital [V104E10-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For decades, professional divisions have been represented as the main structural divisions in Western medicine throughout the world. In Taiwan, medical policymakers are also interested in designing professional divisions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Therefore, this study evaluated the current status and potentiality of professional divisions of TCM in Taiwan using data from the year 2012 obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database; the database provides information regarding age and gender of TCM physicians (TCMPs); total visit counts; contracted medical institution codes; groupings of diseases classified under International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes; numbers of children and female patients seeking treatment; and claim disposition codes used by each TCMP. The results indicated that there were 5522 TCMPs in 2012, and 4876 (90.3%) TCMPs practiced in primary clinics. The proportions of pediatric visits to these TCMPs were mostly below 0.2, and acupuncture or traumatology-related visit proportions were below 0.5. Only a few of the studied Taiwan-based TCMPs practiced gynecology and pediatrics, but most of them performed internal medicine, or acupuncture or traumatology treatments. Thus, the number of TCM specialists practicing gynecology or pediatrics is insufficient, indicating that a policy that forms professional divisions of TCM practitioners in Taiwan should be reconsidered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据