Retention and Registration Status of Naturopathic Doctors from Accredited Naturopathic Educational Programs in Canada – A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This cross-sectional analysis describes the entry to practice and continuing registration of cohorts from the two accredited naturopathic medical educational programs in Canada. Methods: Cohorts from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM)-Toronto and CCNM-Boucher were included and analyzed based on jurisdiction of registration, time between graduation and registration, current registration status, and the percentage achieving advanced training and certification. Results: A total of 565 graduates from CCNM-Toronto and 296 graduates from CCNM-Boucher were analyzed. 53.3% (n=459) were registered with the naturopathic regulator in Ontario, 34.0% (n=293) with the naturopathic regulator in British Columbia, 9.1% (n=78) with other regulators or professional associations in Canada and 3.6% (n=31) internationally. 47.3% (n=360) acquired registration within 5 to 7 months of graduation and 23.1% (n=176) within 8 to 11 months. The registration status of 74.8% (n=644) was listed as active. Of the naturopathic doctors (NDs) working in jurisdictions where these certifications are optional, 69.0% (n=392) had their prescribing certification and 49.8% (n=302) had their Intravenous and Injection Therapies (IVIT) certification. Conclusion: This cross-sectional analysis indicated that 2 to 3 years following graduation, the NDs sampled have a similar or higher retention rate as other healthcare professionals. The majority of graduates are registered to practice in the same province as the naturopathic program they attended. A higher percentage of NDs practicing in British Columbia than in Ontario have additional training and certification in prescribing and intravenous therapies, which may be a reflection of the broader scope of practice in that province.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".