Advancing Supportive Cancer Care: A Survey of Naturopathic Doctors to Identify Practice Patterns, Knowledge Gaps and Resource Needs
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
Background: Clinical guidance for naturopathic doctors (NDs) in supportive cancer care is limited, highlighting a potential need for resource development.Objectives: Describe naturopathic practice, identify oncology-related knowledge gaps, and determine preferred clinical resources. Methods: A 40-item online survey was distributed to NDs through naturopathic associations, social media, and informal networking. Questions varied based on whether respondents provided cancer care (“cancer stream”) or not (“general stream”). The survey ran from September 2023 to March 2024. Data analysis included frequency distributions and descriptive statistics. Results: Among 149 eligible responses, 62% practiced in Canada, 36% in the United States, and 2% elsewhere. The cancer stream (n = 99) primarily worked in community settings, offered hybrid care, and did not exclusively treat cancer patients. The largest knowledge gaps were related to intravenous (IV) green tea extract and curcumin, photodynamic and ozone therapy, managing tinnitus, and interactions between naturopathic interventions and stem cell transplants and photodynamic therapy. Time constraints were the main barrier to addressing knowledge gaps. The smallest gaps were reported for exercise counselling, the Mediterranean diet, IV vitamin C, vitamin/mineral infusions, and managing constipation, anxiety, diarrhea, fatigue, hot flashes, and depression. In total, 97% supported the development of clinical resources, with no format preference. In the general stream, 58% indicated that additional training would increase their likelihood of offering cancer care. Conclusion: This survey highlights oncology-related knowledge gaps, which were generally highest for less commonly used and studied therapies, and strong clinician support for resource development. Varied resource formats may accommodate different learning styles and improve dissemination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it