The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by Canadian occupational therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the proportion of occupational therapists currently using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), or providing referrals to CAM practitioners, as well as the purposes of use/referral in one Canadian region. A questionnaire survey on CAM was sent through e-mail and post to 1123 Canadian occupational therapists. Content, construct and face validity, as well as response, desirability/social, and instrument bias were considered and controlled through study design. A response rate of 17.1% was achieved. Overall, 31.2% of respondents have used at least one form of CAM, with 5.5% using > 1 form of CAM. Purposes for use focused on the treatment of symptoms. Reasons preventing CAM's use included lack of training (82.4%), interest (23%) and/or supporting evidence (22.3%). Considerations of incorporating CAM into occupational therapy focused on a client-centred and holistic approach to treatment (43-63.3%), ranking above legal/employer-related aspects (43-43.6%). Elaborations of negative responses indicated that further supporting evidence on forms of CAM and related research may result in changes of opinion. Therefore, further research on the use of CAM is needed, allowing for evidence-based decisions to be made.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".