Use of complementary and alternative medications among patients in an obstetrics and gynecology clinic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current use of complementary and alternative medication (CAM) products among women in obstetrics and gynecology outpatient clinics. STUDY DESIGN: This study was performed at a major academic center among patients seen at either a faculty-led private clinical practice site (n = 250) or a resident-led clinical practice site (n = 250). Patients were requested to bring a written list and the medication bottles (prescriptions, over-the-counter medications and CAM products) to the clinic, where a survey was then administered. RESULTS: Overall, 18.6% of participants were using CAM products. Significantly more patients reported using CAM products in the faculty private practice as compared to the resident clinic practice (28.4% vs. 8.8%, respectively, p value < 0.05). Only 29.0% of CAM products users had spoken to a healthcare provider regarding CAM products. Multivariate logistic regression model determined that older age (p < 0.0001) and Caucasian ethnicity (p = 0.0245) were associated with higher rates of CAM products use. CONCLUSION: In this study CAM products use was not as prevalent as anticipated for this patient population, however it continues to be underreported to providers. Healthcare professionals should continue to increase their knowledge about CAM products, take a proactive role to improve documentation, and develop an open communication with patients regarding appropriate use of CAM products.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".