A Survey of Attitudes to Traditional Chinese Medicine Among Chinese Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the attitudes and personal experiences with traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) use in Chinese medical students. Medical students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong were asked 13 questions according to an anonymous survey. Six hundred and eleven of 780 medical students (47% males, 52% females) returned the questionnaire; 199 (33%) of the participants used TCM at least once in the past year, and 85% had ever tried various TCM. The attitude was positive in 41%, neutral in 52% and negative in only 6%. The majority (70%) reported no change in attitudes towards TCM after studying Western medicine (WM). Of the 199 participants who had used TCM in the past year, upper respiratory infections were the most common circumstance leading to TCM usage, with 31% immediately using TCM without any TCM practitioner consultation. The most common modality of TCM used by 85% of participants was herbal decoction, and nearly one-quarter had used over-the-counter Chinese medicine. Although 78% reported they knew of the TCM practitioner or treatment from family members or friends, 14% stated they randomly selected the practitioner. "Effectiveness of TCM," "fewer side effects than WM," "illness not completely treated by WM" and "recommendation from family/friends" were common beliefs held by participants for TCM usage. Forty-five percent reported that they had not been told of any side effects of TCM. Pre-clinical students had more positive attitudes towards TCM and consulted TCM practitioners more often in the past 12 months (OR 9.1, CI 3.16-28.18; p < 0.001) compared to students in clinical years, who tended to become more negative towards TCM after studying WM. TCM usage is common among medical students in Hong Kong. It is important to note that nearly half of the students were not aware of any possible side effects from TCM. Students appear to become more negative towards TCM after studying WM.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".