MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287448216 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056075

International prevalence of consultation with a naturopathic practitioner: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4287448216 on OpenAlexaff
Amie Steel, Rebecca Redmond, Janet Schloss, Holger Cramer, Joshua Z. Goldenberg, Matthew Leach, Joanna Harnett, Claudine Van De Venter, Andy McLintock, Ryan Bradley, Jason Hawrelak, Kieran Cooley, Brenda Leung, Jon Adams, Jon Wardle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeCanadian College of Naturopathic Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaturopathyMedicineFamily medicinePsychological interventionMeta-analysisPopulationSystematic reviewAlternative medicineMEDLINEGrey literaturePublic healthEnvironmental healthPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Naturopathy is a traditional medicine system informed by codified philosophies and principles, and an emphasis on non-pharmacologic therapeutic interventions. While naturopathy is practised by approximately 75 000-100 000 000 naturopathic practitioners in at least 98 countries, little is known about the international prevalence of history of consultation with a naturopathic practitioner. This study reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing the global prevalence of history of consultation with a naturopathic practitioner by the general population. SETTING: The included literature was identified through a systematic search of eight databases between September and October 2019, as well as the grey literature. PARTICIPANTS: Studies were included if they reported the prevalence rate of consultations with a naturopathic practitioner by the general population. INTERVENTIONS: Survey items needed to report consultations with a naturopathic practitioner as defined in the country where data was collected, and not combine naturopathic consultations with other health services or only report consulations for illness populations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures used for the analysis was consultations in the previous 12 months. Other prevalence timeframes were reported as secondary measures. METHODS: Meta-analysis of prevalence data was conducted using random effects models based on individual countries and WHO world regions. RESULTS: The literature search identified eight manuscripts summarising 14 studies reporting prevalence for inclusion in the review. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Meta-analysis of the included studies by world region found the 12-month prevalence of history of naturopathy consultations ranged from 1% in the Region of the Americas to 6% in the European and Western Pacific Regions. CONCLUSIONS: There are up to sixfold differences in the prevalence of naturopathy consults over 12 months between and within world regions, which may be driven by a range of policy, legislative and social factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020145529.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207