Complementary/alternative medicine: comparing the view of medical students with students in other health care professions.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the opinions, knowledge, and attitudes of final-year medical, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, nursing, and pharmacy students about complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: A cross-sectional study questionnaire (n = 442) was administered on site at the University of Western Ontario and the University of Toronto to fourth-year health professions students. Outcome measures were self-reported knowledge, attitude, and perceived usefulness of CAM therapies, the perceived importance of scientific inquiry for the acceptance of CAM, and educational exposure to the topic. RESULTS: Educational exposure to CAM was correlated with the perceived usefulness of CAM. Medical students reported the least amount of education about CAM and viewed CAM therapies as less useful than did their health professions student peers. Medical students and pharmacy students were more likely than the other health professions students to view traditional scientific forms of evidence as necessary before accepting CAM therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions differed among the different health professions student groups about the usefulness of CAM therapies and the kind of evidence needed before they should be incorporated into standard care. This may have important implications for multidisciplinary care.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it