Use of Complementary Health Approaches for Acute Complaints Presenting to the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of complementary health approaches (CHAs) specifically for acute complaints in patients assessed in a pediatric emergency department (ED) and factors associated with use. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was offered to patients between the age of 28 days and 18 years assessed at a tertiary pediatric ED between December 2014 and July 2015. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify variables associated with CHA use. RESULTS: Of 475 potential participants, 412 (86.7%) participated, of which 369 (89.5%) completed the survey. Overall, 28.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.3-33.5) reported using any CHA for their child to treat the presenting complaint in the prior 72 hours to the ED visit. Gastrointestinal complaints had the highest use of CHA (46.3% of presentations endorsed use). The most common complementary health products used were vitamins and minerals (40.9%; 95% CI, 31.2-51.4); the most common complementary health practice used was massage (37.2%; 95% CI, 24.4-52.1). Multivariate analysis showed lower odds of using CHA for rash/skin complaint (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.59; P < 0.01) or musculoskeletal/extremity complaints (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07-0.75; P = 0.01) compared with use for fever. No statistically significant association was found between CHAs use and child's sex, child's age, private insurance, or caregiver education. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers commonly use CHA for acute pediatric complaints requiring an ED visit, with greatest use for gastrointestinal complaints. Clinicians should consider the use and safety of CHA when evaluating children presenting to the ED with acute conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".