Alternative Medicine Use by Individuals with Major Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of alternative medicine (AM) by persons with major depression and to examine the factors associated with AM use among these individuals. METHODS: We used data from the 1994-1995 and 1996-1997 National Population Health Surveys. We selected subjects who had major depression according to the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form for Major Depression (CIDI-SFMD). The prevalence of AM and conventional health service use by the subjects was calculated for each survey and was stratified by province. We employed logistic regression to examine the factors associated with AM use. RESULTS: There was a temporal trend toward increasing use of AM among persons with major depression. The prevalence of AM use among subjects with major depression was 7.8% in 1994-1995 and 12.9% in 1996-1997. Female sex, having more than 12 years' education, and having 1 or more long-term medical conditions were associated with an increased likelihood of using AM. The sex difference in AM use depended on subjects' age in 1996-1997. CONCLUSION: General practitioners, mental health specialists, and AM providers should be aware of their patients' use of both conventional medical services and AM because there may be interactions between conventional and alternative treatments. Communication and, if possible, cooperation may lead to improved outcomes in the management of depressive disorders.
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".