ArticlePloS one2022
Use of traditional and complementary medicine for COVID 19 prophylaxis among healthcare professionals and students in Jordan: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-medication with herbal remedies and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 among healthcare students in Maputo.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prevalence of self-medication with vitamin or mineral supplements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC nutrition · 2025Article
- Use of complementary medicines among older adults living in 23 residential aged care facilities in Australia.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- COVID-19-related stress, anxiety and vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in a tertiary hospital in South-Western Nigeria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Attitudes and use of complementary and alternative medicine: a cross-sectional comparison between medical and non-medical students.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Use of integrative and complementary practices in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2024Article
- Topic and Trend Analysis of Weibo Discussions About COVID-19 Medications Before and After China's Exit from the Zero-COVID Policy: Retrospective Infoveillance Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is inadequate evidence to recommend the use of any traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) methods such as vitamin, mineral, herbal or other dietary supplements to prevent or treat COVID 19. Members of the medical team are particularly at risk of exposure to high viral load of coronavirus. They have also the best access to professional information regarding disease treatment and prophylaxis and disseminate such knowledge. The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of use of T&CM for the prophylaxis of COVID 19 among the healthcare professionals and students in Jordan, along with the most common types and the factors associated with T&CM use. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study of T&CM use was conducted in Jordan using a snowball sampling method to distribute Google Forms and to enrol participants during coronavirus outbreak between June 10, 2021, and August 28, 2021. The study included healthcare professionals or students who consented to participate in the survey. The survey excluded those participants who had filled the questionnaire at least once or were pregnant/breast-feeding at the time of the study. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items, including screening, checkbox, dichotomous, matrix and open-ended questions.
resultsThe response rate was 97.1%. Out of 560 study respondents, 359 (64.1%) reported using T&CM for COVID 19 prevention. Vitamins and nutrients were consumed by almost half (48.4%) of study participants, while nonpharmacological methods and herbal remedies were consumed by 35.2% and 25.2%, respectively. The most common source of information regarding T&CM use for COVID 19 prophylaxis included scientific publications (59.5%), followed by disease treatment guidelines (38.0%) and social media (32.3%). Adverse effects were reported by 8.5% and possible adverse effects were reported by another 8.5% of participants. The T&CM use was associated with working in contact with COVID 19 patients (OR: 1.625 (95% CI 1.047-2.523) (P = 0.03) and having a colleague as a source of information (OR: 1.720 (95% CI 1.026-2.883) (P = 0.04).
conclusionsThe prevalence of T&CM use for COVID 19 prevention among healthcare professionals and students in Jordan is high, with a significant proportion of participants reporting adverse effects. There is an urgent need for further research toward efficacy and safety of T&CM in COVID 19 prophylaxis as well as development of appropriate public health policy on this issue specific to each country.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.