METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among undergraduate pharmacy students in a public university in Malaysia using a validated and pre-tested self-administered questionnaire. The study was conducted in November and December 2019. The data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical tests.
RESULTS: Of the 318 female undergraduate students invited, 219 completed the questionnaire (response rate: 68.9%) with 52% aged between 21 and 23 years. The prevalence of dysmenorrhea was 72.1%, and the prevalence of ever-use and current use of CATs was 70.3 and 54.4%, respectively. Bed rest (71.5%), hot compress/heating pad (47.5%) and massage (43.0%) were the most common CATs used by the respondents. The most common reasons for using CAT were to reduce the need for analgesics (61.4%), efficacy (37.3%) and recommendation by others (32.9%). About 23 and 9% of the respondents believed that CATs were equally "effective" and "more effective" than analgesics, respectively. Reducing the need for analgesics (AOR: 4.066, 95% CI: 2.136-7.739) and those who agreed that CATs are effective (AOR: 2.701, 95% CI: 1.337-5.457) were independently associated with the current use CATs for the treatment of menstrual pain.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of ever-use and current use of CATs is high among female undergraduate pharmacy students. Bed rest and heat applications are the most common CATs used. Reducing the need for analgesics and efficacy are the factors associated with the current use of CATs. Students should be educated about the safe and effective use of CATs to reduce adverse effects and improve their quality of life.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 25 participants agreed to participate in this qualitative study during the period from 20th July 2011 until 24th of September 2011. The proposal of this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Management and Science University (MSU). Once the participant agreed to be interviewed, date, time and place of the interviews were determined. Consent form was obtained from participants before the interview began. Participants were briefed about the study and its purpose, and after asking their permission, their replies were recorded. The data was organized into themes and analyzed manually.
RESULTS: Twenty-five Malaysian traditional healers participated in this qualitative study. The age of participants ranged between 26 to 78 years old. The majority were in the age group of 31-60 years old, male, Chinese, degree holders with a monthly income ranging from 1,000-5,000 Ringgit Malaysia (RM) and were married (56%, 80%, 48%, 52%, 68%, 84% respectively). The majority defined cancer as having high cholesterol or abscess accumulation. A few of them defined cancer as a type of cell growth. The majority mentioned that food and unhealthy lifestyles are the primary causes of cancer. Surprisingly some of them mentioned that cancer is caused by interference by ghosts. Regarding the diagnosis of cancer, the majority mentioned that they refer their patients to modern physicians' medical report when it comes to diagnosing or treating patients with cancer. The most common cancers that many patients came to seek treatment were breast cancers, followed by colon cancers, liver and lung cancers.
CONCLUSION: Despite good knowledge about the causes of cancer among traditional healers, misconceptions still exist. Insufficient knowledge about the definition of cancer was noted among the traditional healers. This urges immediate action by the Ministry of Health of Malaysia to set up a strict regulation and regular monitoring of the traditional healers nationally. Traditional and Complementary Medicine may be integrated into the healthcare system and need to have sustained cooperation for the benefit of patients since about 80% of patients use traditional medicines.
METHODS: Qualitative study using one-to-one semi-structured interviews conducted with 22 HCPs involved in the care of diabetic patients (6 endocrinologists, 4 general practitioners, 4 nurses and 8 pharmacists). Participants were recruited through general practices, community pharmacies and a diabetic centre in Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five key themes resulted from the analysis. HCPs generally demonstrated negative perceptions toward CAM, particularly regarding their evidence-based effectiveness and safety. Participants described having limited interactions with diabetic patients regarding CAM use due to HCPs' lack of knowledge about CAM, limited consultation time and strict consultation protocols. Participants perceived convenience as the reason why patients use CAM. They believed many users lacked patience with prescribed medications to deliver favourable clinical outcomes and resorted to CAM use.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs have noted inadequate engagement with diabetic patients regarding CAM due to a lack of knowledge and resources. To ensure the safe use of CAM in diabetes and optimize prescribed treatment outcomes, one must address the communication gap by implementing a flexible consultation protocol and duration. Additionally, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based information should be available to HCPs and diabetic patients.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted by enrolling 937 students, pharmacy (437) and non-pharmacy (500), of Punjab University, Lahore. A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. Data were analyzed using SPSS. (IBM v22).
RESULTS: Data suggested that majority of students knew about the use of traditional herbs and considered massage (P: 84.4%, NP: 82%, p = 0.099), homeopathy, herbs (P: 86.5%, NP: 81%, p = 0.064], yoga [P: 357 (81.7%), NP: 84%), p = 0.42] and spiritual healing (P: 85.6%, NP: 86.2%, p = 0.55) as effective and least harmful CAM modalities. The pharmacy students had better knowledge about CAM modalities compared to non-pharmacy students. Despite utilizing non-reliable sources of CAM information and their belief that CAM is practiced by quacks, the majority of students had positive attitudes and perceptions about CAM usage. Students also believed that CAM had a positive impact on health outcomes [P: 3.19 ± 1.04, NP: 3.02 ± 1.09, p = 0.008] and acceded to include CAM in the pharmacy curriculum. However, non-pharmacy students scored higher in their beliefs that CAM usage should be discouraged due to the non-scientific basis of CAM (P: 3.04 ± 0.97, NP: 3.17 ± 1.02, p = 0.028) and a possible threat to public health (P: 3.81 ± 1.74, NP: 4.06 ± 1.56, p = 0.02). On the other hand, pharmacy students believed that patients might get benefits from CAM modalities (P: 4.31 ± 1.48, NP: 4.12 ± 1.45, p = 0.02). Majority of students perceived that spiritual healing is the most useful and safer CAM modality, while acupuncture (P: 25.4%, NP: 21.8%, p = 0.0005), hypnosis (P: 26.8%, NP: 19.6%, p = 0.001) and chiropractic (P: 18.8%, NP: 11.6%, p = 0.0005) were among the harmful ones.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, despite poor knowledge about CAM, students demonstrated positive attitudes and beliefs regarding CAM. They exhibited better awareness about yoga, spiritual healing/prayer, herbs, and massage. Students also showed willingness to advance their knowledge about CAM and favored its inclusion in the curriculum.
METHODS: Country-specific data from a multinational prospective cohort study, Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology Study, comprising 1,249 cancer survivors were included. Household costs of complementary medicine (healthcare practices or products that are not considered as part of conventional medicine) throughout the first year after cancer diagnosis were measured using cost diaries. Study outcomes comprised (1) shares of household expenditures on complementary medicine from total out-of-pocket costs and health costs that were respectively incurred in relation to cancer, (2) incidence of financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket costs related to cancer ≥ 30% of annual household income), and (3) economic hardship (inability to pay for essential household items or services).
RESULTS: One third of patients reported out-of-pocket household expenditures on complementary medicine in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis, accounting to 20% of the total out-of-pocket costs and 35% of the health costs. Risk of financial catastrophe was higher in households reporting out-of-pocket expenditures on complementary medicine (adjusted odds ratio: 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.86]). Corresponding odds ratio within patients from low-income households showed that they were substantially more vulnerable: 2.28 (95% CI, 1.41 to 3.68). Expenditures on complementary medicine were, however, not associated with economic hardship in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: In settings with universal health coverage, integration of subsidized evidence-based complementary medicine into mainstream cancer care may alleviate catastrophic expenditures. However, this must go hand in hand with interventions to reduce the use of nonevidence-based complementary therapies following cancer.