Linking integrative medicine with interprofessional education and care initiatives: Challenges and opportunities for interprofessional collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the fields of interprofessional education and collaboration (IPE/IPC) and integrative medicine (IM) are both recognised and clearly advancing as of late, a curious paradox exists: IPE/IPC and IM are both concerned with communicating about and attempting to resolve differences between healthcare professions with the fundamental goal of improving patient outcomes, yet they have remained quite distinct fields of research. This disconnect could be due to the fact that one field deals with integration within the general paradigm of biomedicine (IPE/IPC), while the other addresses integration across paradigms (IM). It is an opportune time for a critical comparison between the two. First, the main themes of IM are summarised as they are reflected in the IM literature. Second, a comparative analysis is presented focusing on the significant similarities and differences between IPE/IPC and IM. The final section addresses the question: What key learning areas from IM could benefit and enhance IPE/IPC?
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".