A Model for Implementing Integrative Practice in Health Care Agencies
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
Over the last few years, there has been increased awareness and use of complementary/alternative therapies (CAM) in many countries without the health care infrastructure to support it. The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine referred to the combining of mainstream medical therapies and CAM as integrative medicine. The creation of integrative health care teams will definitely result in redefining roles, but more importantly in a change in how services are delivered. The purpose of this paper is to describe a model of the necessary health care agency resources to support an integrative practice model. A logic model is used to depict the findings of a review of current evidence. Logic models are designed to show relationships between the goals of a program or initiative, the resources to achieve desired outputs and the activities that lead to outcomes. The four major resource categories necessary for implementing integrative care are within the domains of a) professional and research development, b) health human resource planning, c) regulation and legislation and d) practice and management in clinical areas. It was concluded that the system outcomes from activities within these resource categories should lead to freedom of choice in health care; a culturally sensitive health care system and a broader spectrum of services for achieving public health goals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it