Complementary therapy practice: defining the role of advanced nurse practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify the current and perceived clinical role functions of advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs) within the complementary health paradigm and their learning needs. Participants were asked to identify their referral practices to complementary practitioners, current and perceived clinical activities with respect to six most popular complementary therapies, learning needs and concerns regarding their use. A random sample of 389 ANPs registered with the College of Nurses of Ontario participated in a mailed survey using a modified Dillman approach, an established method for improving response rate through repeated mailings. An overall response rate of 55.3% (215 out of 389 eligible participants) was achieved. The results show that ANPs are currently engaged in clinical activities involving these therapies, with a trend towards more participation in assessing the need for them and counselling on the risks and benefits. ANPs are interested in validating the use of these therapies and acquiring more knowledge on the scientific principles, evidence of efficacy, pharmacology and potential interactions with conventional 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".