Integral Medicine: Treating the Whole—Patient, Provider, Healthcare System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Integral Medicine is an approach to health, disease and healing that invites multiple perspectives and modes of inquiry to synergistically support healing for patients, providers and health care systems.Approach: Integral Theory is a framework for organizing information that considers four perspectives essential to view the whole patient simultaneously – any or all of which may illuminate health or illness in a patient, population or system: “Interior-Individual” (mind, psycho-spiritual development, etc.), “Exterior-Individual” (molecules, cells, organs, bodies, etc.), “Interior-Collective” (cultural, ethical practices or norms, etc.), and “Exterior-Collective” (socioeconomic, environmental system, etc.).Major Points: In practice, the application of Integral Theory to patient care can lead to four quadrant diagnosis and therapy for everything from status asthmaticus to chronic fatigue syndrome. When applied to the personal and professional development of providers an Integral Theory framework may improve critical thinking, ethical reasoning, mindfulness and empathy. At the healthcare system design level, patients have better outcomes when cared for by organizations ranked as having better work environments (where nurses report low rates of burnout, adequate time with patients, good relationships with colleagues, and opportunities for advanced training and continuing education).Conclusions: Treating the whole person becomes more than simply including body, mind and spirit. The whole person includes multiple epistemological ways of knowing. Building on Integrative, Alternative, Complementary, Evidence-based Medicine, and Values-based care, Integral Medicine offers a methodology for integrating the “best” of each of these medical methodologies. Integral Theory, in this respect, can act as a meta-theory weaving together many of the converging concepts emerging in the service of whole patient care. Integral methodology also provides a common map/language for knowledge integration/translation and a shared inter-professional approach to whole patient care at the patient, population and health system levels.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".