Medical residents' and students' attitudes towards herbal medicines: a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing public interest in complementary and alternative treatments. The attitudes and perceptions regarding herbal therapies have not been evaluated amongst physicians-in-training. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aimed to assess the self-perceived competence and attitudes of physicians-in-training in dealing with herbal medicines in clinical practice. METHODS: A survey was distributed amongst 26 medical residents and clinical clerks proceeding a lunch hour teaching session about the risks and benefits of herbal medicines. Respondents were asked to rate their competence, the adequacy of formal training, to indicate their belief in usefulness, and the sources used when dealing with herbal medicines. Estimates of patient use and personal use were also identified. RESULTS: Respondents indicated low confidence in their competency when dealing with herbal medicines in practice; they lacked formal training on the subject, and were not knowledgeable about sources to refer patients to regarding herbal medicines. Half the respondents estimated that between 11-30% of their patients use herbal medicines, but 80% felt that less than 1 in 10 patients was sufficiently competent in the safe use of herbal medicines. The median response regarding the belief in the usefulness of herbal medicine was 'less favourable than neutral' but their interest in further information was 'more favourable than neutral'. Although the literature was the most common source consulted, often no source was used. CONCLUSIONS: Although residents and medical student clinical clerks encounter many patients who use herbal medicines, their own lack of knowledge and personal experience limit their ability to assist these patients in this area. Increased training on the benefits and risks of herbal medicines may help physicians-in-training care for patients using herbal medicines. Key words: Primary care education, postgraduate/intern training, herbal medicines.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".