Attitudes and practices of physicians and naturopaths toward herbal products, including use during pregnancy and lactation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The popularity of complementary therapies continues to grow, and physicians are asked increasingly by their patients for information regarding these modalities. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of these trends on physicians and medical students, and compare their attitudes and practices with those of the naturopaths and their students, with particular interest in the use of herbal products during pregnancy and breastfeeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A detailed questionnaire was distributed by a medical student and a naturopathic student to a randomly selected group of physicians, medical students, naturopaths and naturopathic students. They were asked a variety of questions about their background, attitudes and practices concerning herbal products. RESULTS: Thirty-eight per cent of the questionnaires were returned, with a total of 242 respondents. Fifty-four per cent of physicians discussed complementary therapies with their patients, whereas 100% of naturopaths discussed conventional medicines with their patients. The most popular product recommended by both medical doctors and naturopaths was echinacea, followed by St John's Wort. Eighty-six per cent of physicians, 74% of medical students, 66% of naturopaths and 50% of naturopathic students think that complementary medical education should be incorporated into the standard medical curriculum. Only one physician actually recommended a herbal product to a pregnant patient compared with 49% of the naturopaths who felt comfortable doing so. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary medicine has become a reality, and physicians are recommending herbal products to their patients, although on a smaller scale than are naturopaths. However, the two most popular herbal products are the same in each group. Physicians are less likely to recommend herbal products to pregnant and breastfeeding women than are naturopaths.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".