Mentorship Programs within a Network to Build Research Literacy & Capacity in Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM) Practitioners
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: A lack of research literacy and capacity has been identified as a key barrier to research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Networks may enable multidisciplinary collaboration between academic researchers and CAM practitioners and provide opportunities for mentoring and capacity building. Little is known about how mentoring can operate within a network and what its potential is as a strategy to increase research literacy and capacity among CAM practitioners. Purpose: To explore how mentoring within a network can be used to build research literacy and capacity amongst CAM practitioners. Methodology: Qualitative method was used for data collection and content analysis. Participants were individuals with knowledge and/or experience in networks and/or mentoring, as well as CAM practitioners. Results: Background: A lack of research literacy and capacity has been identified as a key barrier to research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Networks may enable multidisciplinary collaboration between academic researchers and CAM practitioners and provide opportunities for mentoring and capacity building. Little is known about how mentoring can operate within a network and what its potential is as a strategy to increase research literacy and capacity among CAM practitioners. Purpose: To explore how mentoring within a network can be used to build research literacy and capacity amongst CAM practitioners. Methodology: Qualitative method was used for data collection and content analysis. Participants were individuals with knowledge and/or experience in networks and/or mentoring, as well as CAM practitioners. Results: Some major categories derived from the data were: 1) A network must clearly define the role and goals of mentoring. 2) An infrastructure to support and maintain the mentoring relationship should be in place. 3) A number of barriers and enablers for successful mentoring within a network were addressed. 4) Some issues specific to CAM practitioners ability to conduct research were raised. Conclusion: Mentoring was seen as a potentially useful strategy. Ideas for mentoring were suggested, including cooperative models, job shadowing, perceptorship and role modeling. Innovative models were discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle