Observational studyPloS one2026
Herbal or conventional medicine? A cross-sectional study of Jordanian university students' preferences for cold and flu treatment.
Observational study in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUniversity students frequently self-manage common cold and influenza symptoms using herbal remedies, pharmaceutical treatments, or both. However, evidence regarding treatment preferences among Jordanian university students remains limited.
objectiveTo assess treatment preferences and factors associated with four outcomes: first-line treatment choice, timing of treatment initiation, response to perceived herbal treatment failure, and medication-obtaining behavior.
methodsAn observational cross-sectional study was conducted in Jordan among 1,797 undergraduate students from 16 April to 16 September 2025 using a confidential, de-identified Arabic online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression were used to evaluate the four outcomes. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.
resultsCombined therapy was the most common first-line choice (44.5%), and 42.5% initiated treatment on the same day. Female participants had higher odds of preferring combined therapy than males (aOR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.64-3.96; p < 0.001), whereas medical-field students had lower odds of same-day treatment initiation (aOR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.42-0.72; p < 0.001). After perceived herbal treatment failure, 50.7% switched to pharmaceutical treatments; reliance on doctor-prescribed treatments was associated with lower odds of continuing herbal remedies (aOR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.27-0.51; p < 0.001) or combining herbal and pharmaceutical treatments (aOR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45-0.70; p < 0.001). Regarding medication-obtaining behavior, 28.2% purchased pharmaceutical treatments without a prescription based on personal experience, and medical-field students had higher odds of this behavior (aOR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.39-2.23; p < 0.001).
conclusionsTreatment decisions reflected frequent combined self-care and were associated with sex, field of study, symptoms, prescription-related behavior, and treatment beliefs. Targeted health education may support more informed and rational self-care among university students.
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.