Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Is Associated with Worse Adherence to Conventional Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is highly prevalent among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD patients). We assessed whether its use, both for IBD and for general health, influenced adherence to conventional medications. METHODS: We enrolled 392 IBD subjects in a prospective cohort study and categorized them as CAM nonusers (38%) and those who used CAM for general health (CAM-GEN, 41%) and for IBD (CAM-IBD, 21%). Their self-reported adherence was measured using the 4-item Morisky Adherence Scale during a median follow-up period of 6.8 months. RESULTS: CAM-IBD users were less likely to be adherent to medical therapy than CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN users (70% vs. 84% and 81%, respectively, P < 0.05). Nearly all subjects who were nonadherent reported that it was unintentional (97%), and this did not vary use of CAM. After adjusting for confounders, the adjusted odds ratio for adherence among CAM-IBD relative to CAM nonuser was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.22-0.96). CAM-GEN demonstrated similar adherence to CAM nonusers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.44-1.66). CAM-IBD was also less likely than CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN to have improvement in their adherence scores during follow-up (14% vs. 33% and 34%, respectively, P < 0.01). The adjusted odds ratio for improved adherence in CAM-IBD compared with CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN were 0.32 (95% CI, 0.15-0.69) and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16-0.72), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CAM-IBD, but not CAM-GEN, was associated with lower adherence to IBD medical therapy. A third of CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN improved adherence during the observation period, suggesting a Hawthorne effect.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".