Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Preliminary Investigation of the Dietary Practices and Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Patients Diagnosed with Crohnʼs Disease and Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is chronic inflammatory condition that can be managed through pharmaceutical, surgical, and nutrition interventions. Literature suggests that patients are increasingly seeking treatment options beyond conventional medicine, however little is known in context of the Newfoundland population. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) refers to non-conventional medical practices used in combination with, or in place of conventional medicine. The purpose of this study was to conduct a preliminary investigation into the use of CAM therapies, with a focus on dietary practices, by patients diagnosed with IBD. The objectives of this study were to: 1) Investigate the relative use of CAM and conventional therapies by a sample of patients diagnosed with IBD; 2) Investigate if the use of these therapies is associated with gender, age, frequency of flare-ups, type of medications used and/or by IBD diagnosis; 3) Determine the patients' most common sources of nutrition information. Methods: Eligible participants (diagnosed with IBD, and 19 years of age or older) were recruited from a gastrointestinal (GI) clinic in St. John's. Descriptive, self-reported data were collected on participants' demographic and disease characteristics, dietary practices, use of other CAM therapies, and sources of nutrition information via a researcher-administered telephone questionnaire. Results: The most common practice reported for IBD-management was nutrition supplement use (86.0%), while only 30.7% of participants used other CAM therapies. Gender and age were found to be associated with the use of certain diet practices and CAM therapies. Participants who experienced more than one flare-up per year were more likely to use diet and nutrition therapies. Time from diagnosis, and use of stronger medications were associated with supplement use. The internet was the highest reported source of nutrition advice, and the registered dietitian (RD) was the highest physician-recommended source for nutrition information. Less than 46% of participants who reported use of diet and nutrition supplements received nutrition information from a RD.Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Conclusion: Patients with IBD manage their disease-related symptoms in many ways but dietary practices far exceed the use of other CAM therapies. Patients with IBD should consult with credible sources of nutrition information, such as the RD, to ensure that dietary practices are being used most effectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".