METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 725 postpartum mothers, aged 18 and above, attending a primary-care clinic. The systematic sampling method was used to recruit patients through a structured, self-administered questionnaire. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 23. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of CAM use among postpartum mothers.
RESULTS: The prevalence of CAM use among postpartum mothers was 85.5%. Manipulative body therapies, including massage, reflexology, hot stone compression and body wrapping were the most widely used methods of CAM (84.1%) among postpartum mothers, followed by biological-based therapies (33.1%). More than half of the respondents (52.1%) opted to use CAM, as they had observed good results from other CAM users. However, our study showed that 57.1% of mothers who consumed herbal medicine reported neonatal jaundice in their newborn. The median of the expenditure on CAM usage was 250 Malaysian Ringgits, or USD 61.3 per month. According to multiple logistic regression analyses, being Muslim (OR = 5.258, 95% CI: 2.952-9.368), being Malay (OR = 4.414, 95% CI: 1.18-16.56), having a higher educational level (OR = 2.561, 95% CI: 1.587-4.133) and having delivered via spontaneous vaginal delivery (OR: 5.660, 95% CI: 3.454-9.276) had a significantly positive association with CAM use among postpartum mothers.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CAM use was high (8 out of 10) among postpartum mothers. Postpartum mothers who are Malay, Muslim, have a higher educational level and who have had spontaneous vaginal delivery tended to use CAM more. Manipulative body therapies, including massage, reflexology, hot stone compression and body wrapping, were the most widely used forms of CAM, followed by biological-based therapies. More than half of the mothers who consumed herbal medicine reported neonatal jaundice in their newborn. Thus, education to increase awareness regarding the consumption of herbs is urgently required in this country.
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.