Perceptions of Natural Health Products Among Patients Attending a Memory Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared patient and caregiver perceptions of natural health products (NHPs) and conventional medications in a memory clinic population. A total of 620 mildly cognitively impaired patients and their caregivers participated in interviews enquiring about their perceptions of NHPs in 4 areas: (1) disclosure of NHP usage information to health care professionals, (2) safety and benefits of NHPs, (3) safety and benefits of conventional medications, and (4) physician knowledge about NHPs. Differences in responses between NHP users and nonusers and between patients and caregivers were examined. A total of 51.8% of subjects were current NHP users, with vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and glucosamine being the most commonly used products. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that NHP use significantly influenced participant interview responses (Pillai's trace, F[4, 613] = 3.488, P = .008), while interviewee (patient or caregiver; Pillai's trace, F[8, 1228] = 1.499, P = .153) and gender (Pillai's trace, F[4, 615] = 0.528, P = .715) did not. Subsequent univariate tests showed that NHP users were significantly more likely to endorse the effectiveness and safety of NHPs compared with nonusers (F[1, 616] = 7.826, P = .005). Careful questioning during visits with health care providers and better counseling may be necessary to reduce the potential for adverse events and NHP-drug interactions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".