Practices and attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine in inflammatory bowel disease: a survey of gastroenterologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly prevalent among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We sought to characterize the practices and attitudes of IBD physician providers toward CAM. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to non-trainee physician members of the American Gastroenterological Association with an interest in IBD. The survey included multiple-choice and Likert scale questions which queried physician perceptions of CAM and their willingness to discuss CAM with patients. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents (80%) considered themselves IBD subspecialists with 75% holding academic appointments. Nearly a third reported initiating conversations on CAM in the majority of their patient interactions, while 90% perceived that a majority of their patients were reluctant to bring up the topic of CAM. Nearly three quarters (72%) of respondents felt comfortable discussing CAM, while those that did not most frequently cited lack of knowledge as the reason. More than half (55%) stated they had no systematic approach to discussing CAM. Most gastroenterologists (65%) reported no formal training in CAM. Most gastroenterologists had recommended use of probiotics, and nearly half had recommended acupuncture. A vast majority believed that there was adjunctive role for CAM in treatment of IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Academic IBD specialists were receptive to the use of CAM, and most felt that it had a role in the treatment of IBD, without necessarily compromising conventional therapy. Formal educational initiatives and societal recommendations on the use of CAM may facilitate a more systematic approach to its use in daily practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".