Nurses' use of ‘wellness’ supplements during the <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19 pandemic in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Quantify disparities and identify correlates and predictors of 'wellness' supplement use among nurses during the first year of the pandemic. DESIGN: Longitudinal secondary analysis of Nurses' Health Studies 2 and 3 and Growing Up Today Study data. METHODS: Sample included 36,518 total participants, 12,044 of which were nurses, who completed surveys during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020 to April 2021). Analyses were conducted in March 2023. Modified Poisson models were used to estimate disparities in 'wellness' supplement use between nurses and non-healthcare workers and, among nurses only, to quantify associations with workplace-related predictors (occupational discrimination, PPE access, workplace setting) and psychosocial predictors (depression/anxiety, county-level COVID-19 mortality). Models included race/ethnicity, gender identity, age and cohort as covariates. RESULTS: Nurses were significantly more likely to use all types of supplements than non-healthcare workers. Lacking personal protective equipment and experiencing occupational discrimination were significantly associated with new immune supplement use. Depression increased the risk of using weight loss, energy and immune supplements. CONCLUSION: Nurses' disproportionate use of 'wellness' supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic may be related to workplace and psychosocial stressors. Given well-documented risks of harm from the use of 'wellness' supplements, the use of these products by nurses is of concern. IMPACT: 'Wellness' supplements promoting weight loss, increased energy, boosted immunity and cleansing of organs are omnipresent in today's health-focused culture, though their use has been associated with harm. This is of added concern among nurses given their risk of COVID-19 infection at work. Our study highlighted the risk factors associated with use of these products (lacking PPE and experiencing occupational discrimination). Findings support prior research suggesting a need for greater public health policy and education around the use of 'wellness' supplements. REPORTING METHOD: STROBE guidelines were followed throughout manuscript. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was involved.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".