Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32382305›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020

Awareness, Self-Use, Perceptions, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) among Health Professional Students in King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Aslam Khan, Mohamed Eldigre Ahmed, Ahmed Aldarmahi, Syed Faisal Zaidi, Ahmad M Subahi, Adnan Al Shaikh, Zackary Alghamdy, Lujain Ali Alhakami

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Investigating Pregnant Women's Attitudes toward Herbal Remedies: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aslam KhanCollege of Science and Health Professions, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3490-799X
Mohamed Eldigre AhmedCollege of Science and Health Professions, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed AldarmahiCollege of Science and Health Professions, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Syed Faisal ZaidiKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmad M SubahiCollege of Science and Health Professions, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Adnan Al ShaikhCollege of Science and Health Professions, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Zackary AlghamdyCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Lujain Ali AlhakamiCollege of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAround 75% of the world's population relies on the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) for their healthcare. Thus, we aimed at assessing the attitude and perception of health professional students about CAM and correlate the results with their demographical data.

methodsAn observational cross-sectional study was conducted at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, by enrolling 350 students. A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.

resultsResults of our data suggested that majority of students were aware of the CAM modalities and considered prayers/spirituality (83.6%), massage (72.5%), nutritional supplements (74.1%), cupping (68.5%), herbal medicine (66.2), and yoga (61.6%) as most effective and least harmful CAM modalities. The students acquired more information about CAM from media (55%), books (56%), friends/relatives (59.7%), and other health professionals (58.4%), however, very little information from formal CAM courses or training (36.7%), which shows the lack of courses and trained health professional in the field of CAM. Despite utilizing nonreliable sources of CAM information, the majority of students had positive attitudes and perceptions about CAM usage. Majority of the students (75.8%) believe in the use of CAM for the mental and spiritual aspect of health and think that CAM providers give good information on maintaining a healthy lifestyle. The data also showed a significant (

conclusionIn conclusion, despite the lack of proper courses and professionally trained healthcare providers in the field of CAM, students demonstrated positive attitudes and beliefs toward the safety and effectiveness of CAM.

Identifiers

PMID32382305
PMCPMC7191386
OpenAlexW3019690585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.