An examination of technologies in complementary medicine education and practice: The perceptions and experiences of naturopathy students, faculty and educational leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the education of future CM practitioners. The objective is to explore the perceptions and experiences of students, faculty and professional leaders toward technologies in complementary medicine education and practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative focus groups and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted in CM educational organizations and institutions in North America (United States / Canada) and Australia involving seven focus groups (29 naturopathic students), and 30 one-on-one interviews (faculty, educational and professional leaders of the naturopathic profession). RESULTS: Data analysis identified five issues reported. These related to perceptions of; the shortfalls of CM classroom technology, the value of technology within CM clinical practice, learning technologies in the classroom, addressing equity concerns as a consequence of learning technology use, and the need to develop technology literacy skills amongst students and faculty. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine the perceptions of students, faculty and professional leaders toward technologies in CM education and practice within an education setting. CM students exhibited complex attitudes and adoption patterns to technology. CM students were critical of faculty who have perceived low levels of digital literacy. The technology issue that students in our study found most challenging was PowerPoint use in the classroom. There is an urgent need to establish a strategic research agenda and modelling around this important area of health care education in order to ensure a well-educated, effective workforce able to deliver the best outcomes for the patients and communities they serve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".