Integrative health care in a hospital setting: Communication patterns between CAM and biomedical practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the area of collaboration between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and biomedical practitioners often describes their relationships as fraught with power struggles. This paper explores communication among the various stakeholders at an integrative health clinic for artists located in a university hospital. Qualitative research methods were used, in-depth interviews and semi-structured focus groups, to facilitate the gathering of information about patterns of communication among stakeholders involved at the clinic. The findings describe the challenges to communication and integration at the clinic. The lack of communication is described as a scheduling issue, or lack of consistent presence of CAM practitioners, and a lack of formal methods of communication (patient charting). The consequences of these gaps were felt mostly by the CAM practitioners, as their scope of practice was not well understood by other practitioners. CAM practitioners stated that this had a direct effect on their confidence levels. CAM practitioners were relegated to the periphery of the hospital in their role as part-time, contract employees. Their lack of consistent presence at the clinic lead to a lack of understanding of their scope of practice, hence, a lack of referrals from other health-care practitioners, particularly those who were biomedically-oriented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".