Supplement use among a diverse sample of perimenopausal and menopausal women in rural Hawaiʻi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Supplement use is common among women experiencing menopause and perimenopause. Previous studies have identified regional, cultural, and ethnic differences in supplement use patterns and have identified a high prevalence of supplement use among rural populations. The objective of this study was to characterize supplement use among an ethnically diverse population of perimenopausal and menopausal women living in a rural region of Hawaiʻi in the US. METHODS: From May to August 2023, women aged over 40 years presenting for care at an academic women's health clinic were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. A 10-minute survey including questions concerning demographic characteristics and supplement use was administered. Descriptive statistics were used to describe data obtained from the survey. RESULTS: One hundred participants completed the survey. Of these, most participants identified as Asian, White, or Native Hawaiian. Ninety-four percent of respondents reported using at least one supplement in the previous 6 months. Most participants (60%) used four or more supplements, and the mean monthly cost was US$55 (A$83). The most commonly reported supplements included vitamin D, calcium, a multivitamin, and magnesium. Health professionals were the most commonly identified source of information regarding supplement use (69%). The most common motivations for supplement use were promotion of general health (51%) and replacement of dietary deficiencies (11%). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of supplement use among perimenopausal and menopausal women in rural Hawaiʻi is higher than previously published measures of supplement use among similarly aged women in the continental US, the UK, and Canada. In the setting of such widespread use, clinicians caring for this population may consider initiating thoughtful discussions with patients on the risks and benefits of using these products.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".