Mental Disorders and Reasons for Using Complementary Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare patients with and without mental disorders who seek services from a complementary therapy practitioner with regard to quality of life, reasons for seeking complementary therapies, complaints, and physical conditions. METHOD: We studied new patients who attended a complementary therapy clinic offering acupuncture treatment between July 1, 1993, and March 31, 1995. We collected data from a self-administered questionnaire and from a physician-conducted psychiatric assessment. RESULTS: Of the 826 new patients at the clinic, 578 (70%) presented with a mental disorder. Patients with a mental disorder perceived their quality of life as poorer and reported greater levels of stress than did those without a mental disorder. However, the groups did not differ in their self-reported reasons for seeking complementary therapies, in their complaints, or in their physical conditions. Among patients with a mental disorder, the major reasons for choosing complementary therapies were personal preference, interest, or belief in complementary therapies (44.3%) and perceiving complementary therapies as a last resort (30.7%). Most patients with a mental disorder saw a complementary practitioner for musculoskeletal and connective-tissue disorders (44.1%), fatigue (26.6%), and headache (15.2%). The most frequent physical illnesses among patients with a mental disorder were diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (42.6%). CONCLUSION: Like their counterparts without a mental disorder, individuals with a mental disorder use complementary therapies because of personal beliefs. The wide use of complementary therapies among individuals with a mental disorder may be ascribed to a poor quality of life and high levels of distress.
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) | 0.000 | 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".