Nurses who left the British NHS for private complementary medical practice: why did they leave? Would they return?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the successful retention of National Health Service (NHS) nursing staff is a policy concern, evidence suggests that substantial numbers of registered nurses continue to leave the profession, and some to own and run small caring-related business. At the same time, private complementary medicine has undergone a rapid expansion in recent years, and initial impressionistic evidence suggests that many therapists are former nurses. AIMS: The paper investigates the motivations and experiences of nurses who have either left nursing altogether, or substantially reduced their involvement, and who now practise complementary medicine in the private sector. It also investigates the issue of whether they would consider returning to practise complementary medicine within the NHS. METHODS: A combined questionnaire (n = 63) and semi-structured interview (n = 11) survey was used to collect detailed attitudinal data from respondents. The analytical approach to the interview data used a form of constant comparative analysis which was derived from the principles of grounded theory. In particular, the interviews were developed and refined from each other as they progressed. RESULTS: The majority of therapists operate independently, either from their own homes or from small rented premises. They were originally motivated by a disillusionment with the health service and particular aspects of their former jobs. However, equally they were attracted by the therapies themselves, the conceptual paradigms which underpin them and the different experiences of practice. Despite stating a disillusionment with the NHS, most respondents expressed a cautious willingness to potentially re-enter the NHS to practise complementary medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Many practising complementary therapists are registered nurses who may be willing to re-enter the formal health service. It is therefore argued that a greater synergy between orthodox and complementary medicine may be one way of addressing shortages of nursing labour, and in particular this form of drop-out, whilst meeting evolving consumer health care demands.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".