ArticleNutrients2026
Complementary Medicine Use and Perceptions of It in Victoria, Australia: A Statewide Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesComplementary medicines (CMs) are widely used in Australia, yet consumer beliefs about their safety and effectiveness often diverge from the scientific evidence. Contemporary statewide data from Victoria, particularly about these perceptions and underlying perception profiles, are limited. We therefore aimed to characterise CM use patterns and perceptions of it among Victorian adults and identify the demographic and use-related belief patterns.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in metropolitan and regional Victoria (November 2024-August 2025) among adults (≥18 years) who had used complementary medicines in the previous 12 months (N = 447). The questionnaire assessed CM use patterns, perceived effectiveness, safety, quality, perceived risk relative to prescription medicines, adverse events, and demographics. The analyses included descriptive statistics, χ
resultsCM use was frequent (62.2% daily; 19.2% weekly) and often long term (>1 year, 55.0%). The most commonly used products were vitamin D (53.0%), multivitamins (39.8%), magnesium (34.5%), iron (33.8%), and vitamin C (30.0%). The perceptions were favourable: 77.3% rated CMs as effective, 90.4% as safe, and 60.3% as high quality; 78.5% perceived CMs to have lower side-effect risks than prescription medicines. Adverse events were reported by 12.3%. In the adjusted models, adults ≥ 65 years and monthly/occasional users were less likely to endorse "lower risk than prescription medicines" (aOR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06-0.51; aOR: 0.36, 0.18-0.72). East Asian respondents had lower odds of endorsing CM effectiveness than Caucasian/White respondents (aOR: 0.28, 0.11-0.72). Their perceived quality was higher among men (aOR: 1.73, 1.09-2.74) and adults aged 55-65 years (aOR: 3.81, 1.39-10.48).
conclusionsIn this contemporary statewide Victorian sample, CM use was common and generally viewed positively, yet the comparative risk may be underestimated. Profiling perception patterns and identifying belief patterns by age, culture, and use intensity provides actionable targets for clinician/pharmacist counselling and culturally tailored education to support safer, evidence-aligned CM use.
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.