↓ Skip to main content

Complementary and alternative medicine usage among cardiac patients: a descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complementary and alternative medicine usage among cardiac patients: a descriptive study
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0610-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mandreker Bahall

Abstract

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) persists, despite the availability of conventional medicine (CM), modernisation, globalisation, technological advancement, and limited scientific evidence supporting CAM. People with cardiovascular diseases often use CAM, despite possible major adverse effects and lack of evidence supporting CAM claims. This study explored CAM use among cardiac patients, the types of CAM used, reasons and factors that influence its use, and the association between patient demographics and CAM use. This cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted using quota sampling to survey 329 public clinic adult cardiac patients within the South-West Regional Health Authority (SWRHA) of Trinidad and Tobago. From 1 July 2012 to 31August 2012, each participant completed questionnaires, after consenting to participate. Data analysis included χ(2) tests and binary logistic regression. One hundred eighty-five (56.2%; standard error [SE] = 2.74%) patients used CAM. Herbal medicine was the most common CAM (85.9%; SE = 2.56%), followed by spiritual therapy/mind-body systems (61.6%; SE = 3.58%), physical therapy/body manipulation (13.5%; SE = 2.51%), alternative systems (8.1%; SE = 2.01%), and other methods (3.8%; SE = 1. 41%). The patients believed that CAM promotes health and wellness (79.5%; SE = 2.97%), assists in fighting illness (78.9%; SE = 3.00%), addresses the limitations of CM (69.2%; SE = 3.56%), alleviates symptoms (21.6%; SE = 6.51%), costs less than CM (21.6 %, SE = 3.03), and has fewer adverse/damaging effects than CM (29.7, SE =3.36), or they were disappointed with CM (12.4%, SE = 2.42). Ethnicity and religion were associated with CAM usage, but only ethnicity was a useful predictor of CAM use. Complementary and alternative medicine use was high among cardiac patients (56.2%, SE = 2.74%), and associated with ethnicity and religion. Friends, family, and perceived mode of action influenced a patient's use of CAM.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brunei Darussalam 1 <1%
Unknown 127 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 42 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 46 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2020.
All research outputs
#4,172,589
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#792
of 3,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,276
of 264,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#20
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.