The use of alternative therapies in the Saskatchewan stroke rehabilitation population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients use alternative therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of stroke rehabilitation patients in Saskatchewan using alternative therapies, whether patients found these therapies effective in alleviating stroke-related symptoms, how often those patients who used alternative therapies discuss this fact with their primary care doctor and the main reason why patients might not do so. METHODS: Telephone questionnaire surveys were conducted with 117 patients who had suffered a stroke and undergone inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation at Saskatoon City Hospital. RESULTS: The study revealed that 26.5% of 117 stroke rehabilitation patients visited alternative practitioners at least once or used some form of unconventional therapy. Only 16.1% of patients found that alternative therapy made them feel much better. Of those who used alternative therapy, 61.3% did not discuss this fact with their primary physician. Many of the respondents (47.3%) who did not inform their physician stated that they did not see the necessity of talking about these treatments and 21.1% did not discuss the issue with their physician because they felt that he or she might disapprove of alternative therapies. CONCLUSION: A relatively small percentage of stroke patients found alternative therapies beneficial. Doctors should be aware that a significant number of patients will try alternative treatment without discussion with their primary care physician or specialist. The current study suggests that after completing routine questioning, doctors should also ask their patients about their use of alternative therapies and, when appropriate, review issues of safety and efficacy.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".