The relationship between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and quality of life among individuals with chronic pain: results from a nationally representative sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain is a major public health concern in Canada, with an estimated annual cost of $6 billion in direct health care expenses. At the same time, Canadians are participating in an increased use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. Purpose: The purpose of this quantitative research study was to examine the relationship between the use of CAM and HRQOL for individuals living with chronic pain. Method: This study was a secondary data analysis of the nationally representative Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) Cycle 3.1 Subsample 1 collected by Statistics Canada in 2005 (n=32,133). Results: The prevalence of CAM use for the Canadian population was 20.9% whereas for the chronic pain subset, it was 30.8%. CAM users had 1.48 times increased odds of reporting a high HRQOL than non-CAM users (CI=1.16-1.88). Conclusion: These results demonstrate that a modest but significant positive association exists between CAM use and a high HRQOL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".