MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Complementary and alternative therapy (CAT) use and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART): current evidence in the literature, 2000–2009

2011· article· en· W1553184608 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amandah Lea Hoogbruin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MedicineAlternative medicineAntiretroviral therapyFamily medicineMEDLINESystematic reviewHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral loadPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To determine current evidence about the use of complementary and alternative medicine in the context of highly active antiretroviral therapy. The following objectives included identifying the risks and benefits of using complementary and alternative medicine when living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and taking such medications. BACKGROUND: In Canada and the USA, HIV/AIDS service organisations recognise that people affected or infected by HIV are increasingly choosing to use complementary and alternative medicine to cope with this disease. These same organisations advocate for increased access to complementary and alternative medicine and more information about the safe use of complementary and alternative medicine to make informed decisions. Based on the increased integral use of complementary and alternative medicine and conventional medicine in Canada and the USA, the literature review was limited to these two countries. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: Available full-text abstracts published in English from 2000-2009 were retrieved by electronic searches of selected databases, including the websites of Health Canada and American National Center for Complementary and Alternate Medicine (NCCAM). Forty studies were examined and were categorised by referring to the NCCAM (2007) four types of complementary and alternative medicine. RESULTS: Insufficient evidence exists to support the use of a particular complementary and alternate therapy to enhance the management of HIV disease. CONCLUSION: Decisions about using complementary and alternative medicine in conjunction with highly active antiretroviral therapy are often poorly informed. Safety risks and potential drug interactions are frequently ignored as people who use highly active antiretroviral therapy prefer to focus on the physical and mental benefits of using selected complementary and alternate therapies to promote their quality of life. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: As life expectancy increases, from the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, it is important for health professionals like nurses to be knowledgeable about the prevention, assessment and treatment of HIV symptoms and treatment side effects. Given the increased trend of using complementary and alternative medicine by the general population, it is also important to understand the appropriate use of complementary and alternative medicine for symptom management in HIV/AIDS 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.314
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207