The use of natural health products by paediatric patients in respite care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the use and potential interactions of natural health products (NHPs) with conventional medications in children with life-limiting illnesses. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective medical record review of palliative care patients <18 years of age who were admitted for respite care to a Canadian paediatric hospice between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013. The NHPs were identified according to Health Canada's inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 106 children were included in the present study. Eighty-two (77.4%) had used one or more NHPs: 60 (56%) used vitamins and minerals; 45 (42.5%) used other products including probiotics, omega-3, organic acids and essential fatty acids; 34 (32.1%) used everyday consumer products; 12 (11.3%) used herb or plant-based remedies; and one (0.9%) used homeopathic remedies. Thirty-nine potential NHP-medication and 10 potential NHP-NHP interactions were identified. A considerable number of patients (n=54) used at least one medication and NHP, or two NHPs with potential interactions. The most common type of interaction was pharmacokinetic: decreasing blood concentrations of the medication, NHP or both (43.9% of NHP users); and enhancing the blood concentration of an NHP for NHP-NHP interactions (22% of NHP users). CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients in respite care use NHPs. Most used NHPs and medications that have potential interactions, although there were no adverse clinical manifestations in the present study. It is important to educate health care professionals about NHPs, the evidence available and lack thereof. This could reduce the most serious interactions and improve the alliance between parents and health care providers to balance the potential risks and benefits of NHPs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".