Natural health product use in Canada: analysis of the National Population Health Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of natural health products (NHPs) in Western countries has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Although prevalence estimates have been published in the U.S. and elsewhere, little is known about the characteristics of persons who use NHPs. OBJECTIVES: To measure the prevalence of NHP use among adults in Canada, identify the most commonly used agents, and determine the socioeconomic, demographic, and health-related correlates of use. METHODS: NHP use by adults was assessed using the 2000-2001 National Population Health Survey (NPHS), a biennial general health survey conducted by Statistics Canada. A total of 11,424 adults completed the survey in 2000-2001. NHPs were defined as botanical and naturally-derived non-botanical products, excluding essential vitamins and minerals. Prevalence of use estimates were calculated nationally, and by age, gender, socioeconomic status, disease states, and health care practices. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to simultaneously assess the correlations of these variables with NHP use. RESULTS: The prevalence of past 2-day NHP use in Canada was 9.3% in 2000-2001. Fifty-seven percent of users also reported taking a conventional medicine in the same period. Glucosamine, echinacea, and garlic were the most frequently used products. Women reported NHP use more frequently than men (11.5% vs. 7.1%). As compared to young adults, NHP use was about 50% higher in middle-aged and older Canadians. There were no associations with either income or education level. Several disease states were associated with a high prevalence of NHP use: respondents with fibromyalgia (23.3%), inflammatory bowel disease (17.4%), and urinary incontinence (16.8%) were most likely to be NHP users. However, in the multivariate analysis, age and the use of vitamins or minerals were most predictive of NHP use, while health status variables were of less importance. CONCLUSIONS: NHP use is an important health phenomenon in Canada. Although respondents in poor health were more likely to use NHPs, a significant proportion of healthy Canadians also reported NHP use. The use of NHPs also cut across different socioeconomic groups. Concurrent use of conventional medications was common and suggests a need for health professionals to monitor for potential interactions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".