Experiences of healing therapy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use and value of different complementary therapies requires investigation. In particular, qualitative research is required to understand the perceptions and experiences of patients who undergo healing therapy as one type of complementary therapy. The aim of this research is to consider patients perceptions and experiences following a course of healing therapy. METHODS: Twenty two patients took part in this study. This included 13 patients with irritable bowel disease (3 male, 10 female, 47.6 ± 15.0 years), 6 patients with ulcerative colitis (3 male, 3 female, 48.5 ± 25.6 years) and 3 female patients with Crohn's Disease (45.0 ± 5.2 years). Each patient undertook a single semi-structured interview following a course of healing therapy. The data was analysed using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three broad themes were identified from patient interviews (1) The understanding and expectation of healing (2) Experiences and reflection on healing (3) Impact and outcome of healing. The details of each theme are explored within the text, often revealing a unique experience of healing therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients were open towards the benefits that could be attained by healing, although most patients were not sure what healing would entail. Some patients expected to be relaxed by the sessions. However, the most consistent reports were that patients experienced a relaxing sensation that was generated within the session and lasted for a time period after the sessions. In addition to this the healing appeared to be associated with patients feeling more tolerant of their symptoms. Patients valued the therapist and their input into the healing process. It should be noted however, that this report cannot consider the efficacy of the treatment. Further details and experiences are considered within the article, including one negative experience.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".