Complementary and alternative medicine use among colorectal cancer patients in Alberta, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: No population-based data are available on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) specifically among colorectal cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and determinants of CAM use among colorectal cancer patients in Alberta, Canada. DESIGN: Population-based questionnaire. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients (871 of 1240 surveyed), or their close relatives or friends, who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 1993 or 1995 in Alberta, Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, lifestyle, health status, symptoms and coping mechanisms, and attitudes about cancer cause, conventional treatments and practitioners, and CAM and practitioners. RESULTS: Seventy percent (871) of 1240 participants completed the questionnaire, and 49% used CAM. The most frequently used CAM therapies among users were psychological and spiritual therapies (65%), vitamins and minerals (46%), and herbs (42%). Sixty-eight percent of CAM users informed their medical doctors, and 69% used CAM after conventional care. Logistic regression suggested the strongest predictors of CAM use to be vegetarian diet, aged less than 50 years, female, having therapy options other than conventional treatment recommended by conventional doctors, experiencing changes in bowel habits orfatigue before diagnosis, and recommendation of chemotherapy. Nonsurviving patients were more likely to have used CAM than were survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients are using CAM and communicating usage to physicians. This finding suggests that physicians should be prepared to discuss CAM with patients, and evidence-based information about CAM should be sought, including where CAM may pose risks. This study serves as a baseline for studies on the efficacy and safety of 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".