Receiving money for medicine: some tensions and resolutions for community-based private complementary therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During recent years, private complementary medicine has grown as a significant provider of healthcare in the UK and much of this provision is through small private businesses financed by out-of-pocket payments made by privately paying clients. Using a combined questionnaire (n = 426) and interview survey (n = 49), the present paper considers the potential tensions and dilemmas which therapists face and the resolutions which they come to in being carers, but in market terms, also profit makers. Therapists generally identified with being carers first and business people second, and this was reflected in their caring decisions. Indeed, under circumstances where the roles potentially conflicted (e.g. when clients could no longer afford to pay for their treatments), most therapists claimed that they continued to provide care, either by providing their services free-of-charge, at a reduced rate, by deferring payment or by accepting alternative forms of compensation. There is a relative lack of dedicated research literature on complementary therapists, their attitudes and actions, and this paper provides some important data on their specific management and caring decisions. At the same time, the evidence also provides some initial food-for-thought and indicates some potential research directions for exploring ethical issues in the private practice of complementary medicine.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 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".