Complementary and alternative medicine: a survey of its use in pediatric cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of complementary and alternative medicine is high among children and youth with chronic illnesses, including patients with cardiac conditions. Our goal was to assess the prevalence and patterns of such use among patients presenting to academic pediatric cardiology clinics in Canada. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed to inquire about current or previous use of complementary and alternative medicine products and practices, including indications, beliefs, sources of information and whether this use was discussed with physicians. Between February and July 2007, the survey was administered to patients (or their parents/guardians) presenting to 2 hospital-based cardiology clinics: the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, Ontario. RESULTS: At the Stollery Children's Hospital, 64.1% of the 145 respondents had used complementary and alternative medicine compared with 35.5% of the 31 respondents at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (p = 0.003). Overall, the most common products in current use were multivitamins (70.6%), vitamin C (22.1%), calcium (13.2%), unspecified "cold remedies" (11.8%) and fish oil or omega-3 fatty acids (11.8%). The most common practices in current use were massage (37.5%), faith healing (25.0%), chiropractic (20.0%), aromatherapy (15.0%) and Aboriginal healing (7.5%). Many patients (44.9%) used complementary and alternative medicine products at the same time as conventional prescription drugs. Concurrent use was discussed with physicians or pharmacists by 64.3% and 31.3% of respondents, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Use of complementary and alternative medicine products and practices was high among patients seen in the pediatric cardiology clinics in our study. Most respondents believed that the use of these products and practices was helpful; few reported harms and many did not discuss this use with their physicians, increasing the potential for interactions with prescribed medications.
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".