Complementary Health Approach Use Among Adults Reporting a Clinician Diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in a US Online Quota Sample
- 1Jerry M. Wallace School of Osteopathic Medicine, Campbell University, Lillington, NC 27546, USA
- 2Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine, Jerry M. Wallace School of Osteopathic Medicine, Campbell University, Lillington, NC 27546, USA
Abstract
Background/Objectives: We compared reported complementary health approach (CHA) use by self-reported clinician diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), with favorability and expected helpfulness as additional exploratory outcomes. Methods: This secondary analysis included 3022 adults from a 2024 US nonprobability online quota sample. Diagnoses were not clinically verified, and formal ME/CFS criteria were not assessed. Logistic models adjusted for ten covariates, using Firth regression for sparse or unstable estimates. Revision-time Benjamini–Hochberg correction defined nine question-based families by outcome and approach grouping. Results: Among 167 respondents reporting CFS, adjusted odds of use were higher for physical (aOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.60–3.07), nutritional (2.25, 1.34–3.80), combined (1.89, 1.24–2.88), and systems approaches (1.99, 1.32–3.01); all q < 0.05. Nineteen individual CHAs and all seven conventional approaches met q < 0.05 for use. Any-CHA use was 98.2% versus 94.6% (aOR 2.46, 95% CI 0.97–8.91; q = 0.065). Adding the count of other self-reported clinician diagnoses attenuated category-use associations; their CIs included 1. Psychological-category favorability was lower using a mean >3.5 cutoff, but its FDR threshold status depended on midpoint handling. No expectancy association met q < 0.05. Conclusions: Respondents reporting CFS reported greater use of multiple approaches. Additional-diagnosis adjustment changed the estimates, but the count cannot distinguish morbidity from healthcare contact or diagnosis ascertainment. The findings do not establish CFS-specific treatment use, substitution, or effectiveness.
Related
- Deep Learning-Assisted Diagnosis of Middle Ear Diseases in Otoendoscopy Across Clinician Experience Levels: Retrospective Reader Study.
- Hybrid circular-square complementary split-ring resonator sensor for monitoring abnormal blood protein levels for disease diagnosis
- Clinician-curated ChatGPT-4o– and DeepSeek-R1–assisted exercise programmes added to standard physiotherapy for subacromial pain syndrome: a triple-masked randomized controlled trial
- Colorectal cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome: quality standards, emerging technology and complementary strategies.
- Physician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Viral Exanthem Diagnosis and Mandatory Reporting Requirements in Major Metropolitan Regions of Florida, USA
BibTeX
@article{agostini2026complementary,
title = {{Complementary Health Approach Use Among Adults Reporting a Clinician Diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in a US Online Quota Sample}},
author = {Kyle Agostini and Abgail N. Heims and John DiCristo and Andrew D. Bond and Robert N. Agnello and Thomas M. Motyka},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218425},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8425},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Complementary Health Approach Use Among Adults Reporting a Clinician Diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in a US Online Quota Sample
AU - Kyle Agostini
AU - Abgail N. Heims
AU - John DiCristo
AU - Andrew D. Bond
AU - Robert N. Agnello
AU - Thomas M. Motyka
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/29
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218425
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8425
AB - Background/Objectives: We compared reported complementary health approach (CHA) use by self-reported clinician diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), with favorability and expected helpfulness as additional exploratory outcomes. Methods: This secondary analysis included 3022 adults from a 2024 US nonprobability online quota sample. Diagnoses were not clinically verified, and formal ME/CFS criteria were not assessed. Logistic models adjusted for ten covariates, using Firth regression for sparse or unstable estimates. Revision-time Benjamini–Hochberg correction defined nine question-based families by outcome and approach grouping. Results: Among 167 respondents reporting CFS, adjusted odds of use were higher for physical (aOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.60–3.07), nutritional (2.25, 1.34–3.80), combined (1.89, 1.24–2.88), and systems approaches (1.99, 1.32–3.01); all q < 0.05. Nineteen individual CHAs and all seven conventional approaches met q < 0.05 for use. Any-CHA use was 98.2% versus 94.6% (aOR 2.46, 95% CI 0.97–8.91; q = 0.065). Adding the count of other self-reported clinician diagnoses attenuated category-use associations; their CIs included 1. Psychological-category favorability was lower using a mean >3.5 cutoff, but its FDR threshold status depended on midpoint handling. No expectancy association met q < 0.05. Conclusions: Respondents reporting CFS reported greater use of multiple approaches. Additional-diagnosis adjustment changed the estimates, but the count cannot distinguish morbidity from healthcare contact or diagnosis ascertainment. The findings do not establish CFS-specific treatment use, substitution, or effectiveness.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -