A Survey of Perceptions and Practices of Complementary Alternative Medicine among Canadian Gastroenterologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a high prevalence of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) use among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, there is a dearth of information about the attitudes and perceptions of CAM among the gastroenterologists who treat these patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the beliefs, perceptions and practices of gastroenterologists toward CAM use in patients with IBD. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to member gastroenterologists of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. The survey included multiple-choice and Likert scale questions that queried physician knowledge and perceptions of CAM and their willingness to discuss CAM with patients. RESULTS: Fifty-three per cent of respondents considered themselves to be IBD subspecialists. The majority (86%) of gastroenterologists reported that less than one-half of their patient population had mentioned the use of CAM. Only 8% of physicians reported initiating a conversation about CAM in the majority of their patient encounters. Approximately one-half (51%) of respondents were comfortable with discussing CAM with their patients, with lack of knowledge being cited as the most common reason for discomfort with the topic. Most gastroenterologists (79%) reported no formal education in CAM. While there was uncertainty as to whether CAM interfered with conventional medications, most gastroenterologists believed it could be effective as an adjunct treatment. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that gastroenterologists were hesitant to initiate discussions about CAM with patients. Nearly one-half were uncomfortable or only somewhat comfortable with the topic, and most may benefit from CAM educational programs. Interestingly, most respondents appeared to be receptive to CAM as adjunct therapy alongside conventional IBD treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".