Factors Associated with the Use of St. John's Wort among Adults with Depressive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between access to conventional health care and the use of St. John's wort among adults who report depressive symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: Logistic secondary analysis of the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Supplement to the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). STUDY POPULATION: Adults who report depressive symptoms and used St. John's wort (n = 246) were compared to nonusers with depressive symptoms (n = 5,111). RESULTS: After controlling for various sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors, depressed adults who could not afford needed medical care due to cost were nearly two times (AOR 1.92, 95% CI 1.38-2.67) more likely to use St. John's wort than those who could afford conventional medical care. Higher income, education, and health status were also positively associated with the use of St. John's wort. CONCLUSION: The growing use of complementary and alternative therapies in the US is widely interpreted as evidence of changing consumer tastes and dissatisfaction with conventional medical treatment for chronic conditions like depression. However, the rising costs of conventional therapies and diminishing access to health insurance may also play a role.
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".