Exploring adolescent complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) use in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualitative study using a grounded theory approach investigated adolescents' perceptions about complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) use. Adolescents, attending a clinic at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, were interviewed after receiving ethics approval. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. The decision of adolescents to use CAM was based within the context of their world and how it shaped influencing factors. Factors that influenced adolescents' decision to use CAM were identified as certain personality traits, culture, media, social contacts and the ability of CAM providers to develop therapeutic relationships. The barriers and benefits of CAM use influenced evaluation of choices. The importance of barriers in limiting freedom of choice in health care decisions should be investigated by practitioners as they provide care to adolescents. Health care planning for integrative models of care requires determining the "right" blend of expertise by knowing interprofessional boundaries, determining mixed skill sets to provide the essential services and ensuring appropriate regulation that allows practitioners to use their full scope of practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".