MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916830291 · doi:10.1038/s41533-019-0118-x

Perceptions of complementary/alternative medicine use and influence on evidence-based asthma medicine adherence in Malaysian children

2019· article· en· W2916830291 on OpenAlexaff
Siti Nurkamilla Ramdzan, Hilary Pinnock, Su May Liew, Nursyuhada Sukri, Hani Salim, Nik Sherina Hanafi, Norita Hussein, Julia Suhaimi, Ping Yein Lee, Ai Theng Cheong, Azainorsuzila Mohd Ahad, Steve Cunningham, Ee Ming Khoo

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersUniversiti MalayaDepartment of Health and Social CareUniversity of EdinburghNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineAlternative medicineFamily medicineAsthmaFocus groupMalayTraditional Chinese medicineQualitative researchTamilIntegrative medicineInformed consentTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used especially in Asia including for childhood asthma. The use of CAM could influence adherence to evidence-based (E-B) medicine. We explored the views of carers of Malaysian children with asthma regarding the use of CAM for childhood asthma, and its relationship with self-reported adherence to E-B medicine. We used a screening questionnaire to identify children diagnosed with asthma from seven suburban primary schools in Malaysia. Informed consent was obtained prior to the interviews. We conducted the interviews using a semi-structured topic guide in participants' preferred language (Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using Nvivo. Analysis was performed thematically, informed by the Necessity-Concerns Framework. A total of 46 carers (16 Malays, 21 Indians, 9 Chinese) contributed to 12 focus groups and one individual interview. We categorised participants' as 'Non-CAM'; 'CAM'; or 'combination' user. Cultural practices and beliefs in the efficacy of CAM resulted in widespread use of CAM. Most carers used CAM as 'complementary' to E-B medicine. Concerns about dependence on or side effects of E-B treatment influenced carers' decisions to rely on CAM as an 'alternative', with an important minority of accounts describing potentially harmful CAM-use. Healthcare professionals should discuss beliefs about the necessity for and concerns about use of both E-B medicine and CAM, and provide balanced information about effectiveness and safety. The aim is to improve adherence to regular E-B preventer medication and prevent delays in seeking medical advice and harmful practices associated with CAM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Primary Care Respiratory MedicineSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207