ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Public knowledge, safety perceptions, and use patterns of ashwagandha (
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: A convergent mixed-methods design was employed, incorporating a cross-sectional survey of 508 participants and semi-structured interviews with 20 participants. Data were collected over a 6-month period from August 2025 to January 2026. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, inferential tests, and multiple linear regression analyses to identify predictors of knowledge and attitudes. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed to explore participants' experiences, motivations, and safety concerns. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated during the interpretation phase. Results: Overall knowledge and pharmacological awareness of ashwagandha were limited, with nearly half of the participants demonstrating low knowledge levels. Social media and informal networks were the primary sources of information, whereas healthcare professionals were rarely consulted. Positive perceptions of ashwagandha were associated with previous use, frequent use, and a self-reported history of anxiety-related symptoms or conditions. Qualitative findings indicated that ashwagandha use was generally sporadic and motivated by stress management. Participants commonly described cautious, self-regulated use because of concerns about side effects and long-term safety. Some participants also reported using ashwagandha concurrently with other herbal supplements or dietary supplements, raising concerns about potential supplement-supplement interactions and cumulative adverse effects. Conclusion: Ashwagandha use among Saudi adults appears to be influenced primarily by personal experience and psychological factors rather than formal knowledge or professional guidance. Reliance on informal information sources, limited pharmacological awareness, and concerns regarding the safety of combining herbal supplements highlight the need for targeted public health education and greater involvement of healthcare professionals. These findings emphasize the importance of improving public understanding of the pharmacological properties, potential risks, interactions, and safe use of herbal medicines.
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.