MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621069354

Treating individuals with amputations in therapeutic massage and bodywork practice: A qualitative study

2017· article· en· W2621069354 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublisher · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBodyworkQualitative researchPsychologyMassageMedicineMedical educationNursingAlternative medicineSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Best practices for massage therapy and bodywork (TMB) treatment of individuals with amputations are not well established. Although anecdotal observations are available, they have limited applicability for informing effective massage therapy and bodywork approaches for individuals with amputations. This study is part of a multifaceted research program seeking to establish a foundation for education and investigation of TMB for amputation related conditions/symptomology. The purpose of this study was to understand how TMB practitioners approach and treat individuals with amputations and their perceptions of outcomes. The TMB practitioner perspective is important in informing the development of a TMB practice framework for people with amputation. Methods The methodology of this study was informed by the phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted between June and September 2015, recorded and transcribed. Analysis consisted of descriptive coding and themes emerged through an iterative process. Codes and themes were discussed and verified with the research team. Participants were invited to review developed themes to indicate the extent to which results accurately encompassed their experiences as TMB practitioners. Results Twenty-five community practicing, professional TMB practitioners from 16 states consented to participate and all completed one interview. Analysis identified four themes which indicated TMB practitioners: value touch and consider it a core aspect of treatment for individuals with amputations; operate under a core belief that individuals with amputations greatly benefit from TMB; and consider relief that stems from TMB to be multidimensional, including physical, mental, and emotional aspects; and, certain components of treatment approach are unique to amputation clients. Conclusions Findings support that individuals with amputation benefit from TMB, at least from the perspective of TMB practitioners. Findings of this exploratory research identify important questions regarding approaches to treatment and potential TMB effectiveness hypotheses for amputation populations. Next steps will consider TMB approach and effects from the perspective of those with amputation(s).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it