Complementary Treatment Methods Used by GPs in Bulgaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : The complementary methods of treatment are known under different denominations in different countries, such as holistic, nontraditional, integrative, alternative, and in Bulgaria they are legalized as unconventional methods of beneficial influence. This report is part of a study that lies in the foundation of a dissertation thesis entitled Alternative/Complementary Medicine in General Practice. General practitioners from different cities in the country are included. From the review of the scientific literature for other countries we found numerous studies of complementary methods in general practice, but for Bulgaria this study is the first of its kind. Aim : The aim of this article is to analyze and evaluate the use of various alternative/complementary methods of treatment by GPs in the general medical practice. Material and Methods : The study includes 171 general practitioners. An anonymous questionnaire was administered, consisting of 31 questions and examining 24 complementary methods of treatment. Descriptive analysis, nonparametric analysis – chi square test with a level of significance p˂0.05, was used in the statistical processing. Results : The best known complementary methods among GPs are diet, according to 61.8% of GPs, homeopathy - 55.9%, phytotherapy - 50.6%, gymnastics - 43.5%, acupuncture - 39.4%, cupping therapy – 34.7%, hunger therapy - 31.8%, yoga - 31.2%, acupressure - 30.0%, and 5.9% of GPs report not to be familiar with any of the methods listed in the questionnaire. The leading complementary therapies practiced by GPs are the same, but the share of physicians who actually use such methods is significantly lower: diet - 49.7%, homeopathy - 42.7%, phytotherapy - 39.8%, gymnastics - 31.6%, hunger therapy – 17.5%, acupuncture - 15.2%, acupressure - 11.1%, yoga - 10.5%, while 17% of GPs do not use any of the complementary methods outlined above. There is a statistically significant relationship between sex and diet - it is used more often by men (p = 0.018), while gymnastics is mainly used by young doctors, 18-29 years, and then by those aged 45-64 years and over 65 years (p = 0.02). Conclusion: GPs in Bulgaria most often recommend diet, homeopathy, herbal therapy, gymnastics, and hunger therapy, unlike other countries such as America, Australia, England and Canada, where the most commonly used therapies are acupuncture, chiropractic, relaxation, hypnosis, and yoga, while in Brazil, Russia and the countries of Europe homeopathy, herbal therapy, balneotherapy, apitherapy, aromatherapy, and acupuncture are used most often.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".