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: 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.
METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study. Data was collected from cancer patients attending to three departments: surgical, medical and gynaecology at a local hospital in Malaysia. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were recruited. Prevalence of CAM used for CRSE management was 166 (60.8%). Of the CAM users, 144 (86.7%) were female, 102 (61.4%) were employed and 123 (74.1%) were married. Breast cancer patients were found to be the highest users of CAM (n=76; 45.8%). The top three CAM used by patients in managing CRSE were dietary supplements (n=166; 100%); herbal products (n=154; 92.8%) and traditional Malay therapy (n=147; 88.6%). About 83% (n=137) patients disclosed CAM use to their prescribers. Among these, 58 (42.3%) reported that their doctors encouraged the use, whereas 89 (65.0%) patients claimed their doctors disagreed the use of CAM.
CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers still have doubt in combining chemotherapy with CAM, hence patients use CAM discreetly. Increasing the awareness and understanding of CAM use are mandatory to distinguish its possible synergistic or adverse reactions with cancer patients.
Method: Potential studies were identified through a systematic search of Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The keywords used to identify relevant articles were "adherence," "AED," "epilepsy," "non-adherence," and "complementary and alternative medicine." An article was included in the review if the study met the following criteria: 1) conducted in epilepsy patients, 2) conducted in patients aged 18 years and above, 3) conducted in patients prescribed AEDs, and 4) patients' adherence to AEDs.
Results: A total of 3,330 studies were identified and 30 were included in the final analysis. The review found that the AED non-adherence rate reported in the studies was between 25% and 66%. The percentage of CAM use was found to be between 7.5% and 73.3%. The most common reason for inadequate AED therapy and higher dependence on CAM was the patients' belief that epilepsy had a spiritual or psychological cause, rather than primarily being a disease of the brain. Other factors for AED non-adherence were forgetfulness, specific beliefs about medications, depression, uncontrolled recent seizures, and frequent medication dosage.
Conclusion: The review found a high prevalence of CAM use and non-adherence to AEDs among epilepsy patients. However, a limited number of studies have investigated the association between CAM usage and AED adherence. Future studies may wish to explore the influence of CAM use on AED medication adherence.