Is Complementary and Alternative Healthcare Use Associated with Better Outcomes in Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were (1) to examine the association between the use of complementary and alternative healthcare (CAHC) and subsequent health outcomes; and (2) to explore the association between CAHC use and adherence to conventional treatments in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: A cohort of children with JIA (n = 182, mean age 10 yrs) who attended outpatient clinics were followed for one year. We evaluated the use of CAHC, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), global health, physical functioning, pain, and disease severity at 3-month intervals. We also evaluated perceived adherence to treatments. General estimating equations were performed to determine the association between use of CAHC and subsequent outcomes while controlling for possible confounders. RESULTS: CAHC was used by 36.4% of participants over the 12-month period. Use of CAHC was associated with subsequent lower global health and physical functioning despite higher adherence to prescribed medications as assessed by the rheumatologist (p < 0.05). Use of CAHC was not associated with subsequent improved HRQOL or decreased pain or disease severity. CONCLUSION: Children with JIA who use CAHC do not have improved outcomes, at least over the relatively short term. Nevertheless, they seem to be more adherent to conventional treatment according to the rheumatologist.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".