Experiences with Holistic Health Practices among Adults with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore experiences with holistic practices (HP) by people with spinal cord injury (SCI) in British Columbia, Canada, including the types of HP they access and the reasons they utilize these forms of treatment. Method This was a qualitative study of 53 adults with SCI. Participants were engaged in semistructured interviews in focus-group and one-to-one settings. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify prominent themes. Results Eighty-seven percent of participants had accessed some form of HP. They reported a variety of reasons for accessing HP, such as symptom relief and the desire to avoid side effects of conventional therapy. Caregivers and healthcare providers had important roles in encouraging HP. The perceived benefits of HP included physical, emotional, and spiritual components. Barriers to access included logistics, time, and financial constraints. Participants frequently mentioned the use of marijuana as a form of relaxation and pain relief—this was a surprise finding because marijuana is generally not considered a form of HP. Conclusion Eighty-seven percent of the participants in our study were actively engaged in various efforts to improve their health, including the use of HP. Reasons for accessing HP were based on a desire to improve mental, emotional, and physical health as well as to provide hope. Participants chose HP to alleviate pain, boost the immune system, gain strength, improve physical appearance, enhance relaxation, improve mood, feel empowered, and more. Rehabilitation professionals may wish to inform themselves of the range of products and services incorporated in the HP spectrum, and of their potential benefits for SCI patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".