The Experiences, Opinions and Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) among Alberta Midwives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Midwives are maternity care providers who may recommend or provide CAM to assist with their clients’ pregnancy and childbirth, and early neonatal health. Objectives: To describe use, experiences, opinions and perceived CAM educational needs of midwives in Alberta. Method: A descriptive survey of Alberta Midwives. Result: The response rate was 23.7%. Slightly more than 90% of the participating midwives very often recommend CAM and 45.8% very often provide CAM to their patients. Client preferences and scientific evidence of efficacy were the most common reasons for recommending CAM. More than two-thirds (70.8%) of respondents believed that they lacked adequate CAM education. Participant midwives support the use of CAM and its integration into midwifery. Conclusion: CAM was frequently recommended by the midwives who participated in this study. However, the majority of the participants indicated that they lack adequate CAM knowledge and education. Consequently, providing more CAM education opportunities is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".