Knowledge of safety and herb-drug interations amongst HIV+ individuals: a focus group study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how HIV+ individuals access safety and knowledge of drug interactions related to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: We conducted two separate focus group sessions with HIV+ users of complementary therapies. A total of 8 men participated at an urban health centre. Focus group sessions were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was conducted independently and in duplicate, using thematic analysis. RESULTS: All focus group participants described their use of CAM as very important for their health maintenance, giving them a feeling of empowerment in their health care. Potential side effects and safety issues were indicated as major concerns for treatment decisions, but the participant's knowledge of safety issues involved in CAM care for HIV+ patients was limited. The sources used by the participants to gather information regarding safety and interactions with medications were varied but included: their CAM providers, their physicians, books, resources from AIDS Service Organizations, the internet and health food stores. Participants acknowledged that appraising the quality of such information is difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The participants in this study had a strong trust in CAM and used a wide variety of sources to gather information on CAM safety, though their knowledge base was poor. As the use of CAM grows, further research on how to disseminate reliable information on safety and efficacy to this potentially vulnerable population is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".