Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine use among Indigenous peoples with diabetes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
t is well documented that Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States (US) experience higher rates of diabetes 1 and higher mortality rates from diabetes than their non-Indigenous counterparts. ] ople with diabetes are increasingly using complementary medicines alongside conventional diabetes care to improve their overall wellbeing. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines complementary medicines as referring "to a broad set of health care practices that are not part of that country's own tradition or conventional medicine and are not fully integrated into the dominant health-care system". Complementary medicine refers to healthcare, either self-administered or practitioner-led, and examples include massage, chiropractic and western herbal medicine. digenous culture, customs and lore often include traditional forms of healing to enhance health and wellbeing through reconnection to land, spiritual and ancestral roots. Examples of traditional healing practices and medicines include singing/chanting, ceremonies, bush medicine, traditional healers and external remedies. The WHO defines traditional medicine as "knowledge, skill, and practices based on the theories, beliefs, and experiences indigenous to different cultures, whether explicable or not, used in the maintenance of health". These traditional medicines and practices are usually unregulated and operate outside the public healthcare system, while complementary medicine refers to healthcare, both selfadministered or practitioner-led. The integration of these traditional knowledges in Primary Health Care has been posited as an important part in moving forward toward health equity globally. Indeed,
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".