Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prevalence and modes of complementary and alternative medicine use among peasant farmers with musculoskeletal pain in a rural community in South-Western Nigeria

  • Chidozie Emmanuel Mbada1Email author,
  • Tijani Lukman Adeyemi1,
  • Rufus Adesoji Adedoyin1,
  • Hakeem David Badmus2,
  • Taofeek Oluwole Awotidebe1,
  • Olujide Olusesan Arije3 and
  • Olorunfemi Sunday Omotosho3
BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineThe official journal of the International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR)201515:164

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-015-0695-3

Received: 19 September 2014

Accepted: 27 May 2015

Published: 6 June 2015

Abstract

Background

Anecdotally, use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for Musculoskeletal Pain (MSP) is common in Nigeria; however, there seems to be a dearth of empirical data on its prevalence and mode of use. This study investigated the prevalence and modes of use of CAM for MSP among farmers in a rural community in South-western Nigeria.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey employed multistage sampling technique guidelines for conducting community survey by the World Health Organization among rural community farmers in Gudugbu village, Oyo State, Nigeria. A questionnaire developed from previous studies and validated by expert reviews was used to assess prevalence and modes of CAM use. Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Alpha level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 230 consenting rural farmers volunteered for this study with a valid response rate of 93.9 % (n = 216). The lifetime, 12-month and point prevalence of CAM for MSP was 96.8 % respectively. Herbal therapy and massage were the predominant types of CAM therapies among previous (83.8 and 80.1 %) and current CAM users (37.5 and 37.5 %). CAM was largely used as sole therapy for MSP (75.5 %) and also in combination with orthodox medicine (23.6 %), and it is consumed on daily basis (21.8 %). CAM was perceived to be very good in maintaining a healthy life (87.1 %) and has less side effects (74 %) and more healthy than taking doctors’ prescriptions (63.4 %).

Conclusion

There is a high prevalence of CAM among Nigerian rural farmers. The most commonly employed CAM for MSP were herbal remedies and massage which are attributable to beliefs on their perceived efficacy.

Introduction

Musculoskeletal Pain (MSP), especially in the chronic stage is a major public health problem [1] and it is associated with limitation in activity of daily living, loss of workplace productivity, high cost of unemployment compensation, disability and high frequency of health seeking [2, 3]. Studies suggest that the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is high and increasing globally [47] and chronic MSP is the single most reported reason for use of CAM [6, 7].

CAM definition is inconclusive and varies in different contexts. However, Ernst [8] described CAM as “diagnosis, treatment, and/or prevention which complements mainstream medicine by contributing to a common whole, satisfying a demand not met by orthodoxy, or diversifying the conceptual frameworks of medicine”. Independently or in addition to conventional therapy, sufferers of MSP consume a wide range of “natural health products”, “herbal remedies” and other supplements or interventions [6, 7, 9], but, the therapeutic efficacy and side effects of most of these are yet to be sufficiently clarified [10].

Being specific, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [11] describes complementary medicine as health care systems, practices, and products that are not generally considered part of conventional medicine but are used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. As such, CAM covers a heterogeneous spectrum of ancient to new-age approaches that purport to prevent or treat disease [12]. The use of CAM in combination with conventional therapies has a global coverage without particular special bias to either the developed or developing countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) [13] estimates that 70-80 % of patients in the developed countries use at least one form of CAM. Specifically, developed countries such as the United Kingdom [1416] and the United States of America [17, 18] have empirical reports on high utilization and practice of CAM for MSP. Consequently, there have been advocacies and legislations to situate CAM practice within the National Health Sector in the developed countries [1922]. Also, some countries like China, Hong Kong, India, Singapore and South Korea have integrative medicine that combines conventional and CAM treatments for which there is evidence of safety and effectiveness and/or dual healthcare delivery system involving both conventional western medicine and CAM [12, 2329].

Despite, international reports on high preponderance of CAM use for MSP in the developing countries in the range of 20–80 % [3032], there are still few country-specific estimates on the prevalence of CAM use for MSP in Africa. Generally, over 80 % of Africa’s populations depend on traditional healing modalities including herbal remedies, for health maintenance and therapeutic management of disease [33]. A study showed that about 85 % of Nigerians use CAM for healthcare and psychosocial benefits owing to harrowing poverty and dissatisfaction with conventional medical care [34]. Specifically, CAM, mostly in form of herbal remedies has been used among Nigerian patients with varying conditions such as malaria [35, 36], convulsion and epilepsy [37], various forms of cancer [38], sickle cell anaemia [39] and high blood pressure [32]. Despite reports of some studies on high prevalence of MSP in Nigeria [4043], there seems to be a dearth of empirical data on the prevalence and modes of use of CAM for MSP in Nigeria. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and modes of CAM in the management of MSP among farmers in a rural community in South-western Nigeria.

Materials and Methods

This study employed the multistage random sampling procedure to select one (i.e. Oyo state) of the six states that made up the South-Western Nigeria. A list of communities in Oyo State that are typically rural based on the Nigerian national statistical offices definition of rural area [44] were purposively enlisted. The peculiar attribute for enlistment of communities included low population densities, small settlement size, low infrastructure development, and lack of access to services. Gudugbu located in Oyo East Local Government was randomly selected from the list of the rural communities. Gudugbu is also a catchment village for the neighboring rural communities and hamlets. Gudugbu houses the only school and health centre in the area. The villagers consist majorly of Oyo speaking Yoruba indigenes and also some non-indigenes as Igbo, Abasa, Egede, and Togolese people. There are twelve hamlets (smaller villages) under the control of the Baale (i.e. the chief) of Gudugbu.

Based on the World Health Organization [45] guideline for conducting community surveys, eight out of the twelve hamlets that made up Gudugbu community were randomly chosen. A hamlet was used as the primary sampling unit and selection was based on simple random sampling with replacement from a bowl containing 12 pieces of coded numbers. In each hamlet, nine houses were selected at random. The first house to be surveyed was randomly chosen, thereafter, every other house was surveyed until the ninth as the houses do not have local government registration numbers. In order to prevent oversourcing each household, a maximum of three consenting adults aged eighteen years and older were recruited from a household. A minimum of 27 respondents were expected from each hamlet. A minimum sample of 216 respondents were expected to be recruited based on the number of households to be sampled. However, 250 individuals were approached for survey in order to accommodate for refusal of participation. Only 230 individuals who met the inclusion criteria of a positive history or present use of CAM to manage a physician or self-diagnosed MSP responded in this study. The response rate in this study was 92.0 % (i.e.230/250). However, 14 copies of the questionnaire were found not valid for analysis owing to incomplete information. Therefore, the valid response rate in this study was 93.9 % (i.e. 216/230). All the respondents in this study were peasant farmers.

A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed from previous tools used in similar studies by Ramsey et al. [46], Herman et al. [47] and Patterson and Arthur [48] was used for this study. Items in the prototype questionnaires that were not culturally relevant to the study population were removed or modified. For example, religious traditions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism etc., Acupuncture, aromatherapy, ayurveda, homeopathy, and Yoga among others that were part of the prototyped tools were not included in this study’s instrument because they are not culturally relevant in the study environment. The three section questionnaire used in this study was scrutinized for content validity by expert reviews. The first section of the questionnaire sought information on demographic characteristics of the respondents, the second section obtained information on musculoskeletal disorders and CAM use while the last section using a likert scale of 1–5 sought information on beliefs about CAM use among the respondents. The parts of the questionnaire that seeks information about CAM modes and level of involvement with providers and beliefs towards CAM use were adapted from the study by Patterson and Arthur [48]. However, because of the literacy level of the rural population in this study, interviewer-administered questionnaire mode was also employed for volunteers who were not literate in either English or Yoruba (the local dialect in the study environment) language. The interview was carried out by the second author of this article only in order to prevent variation in questionnaire administration and ensure standardization. CAM was defined in this study as a range of health practices involving use of herbal therapy, massage therapy, concoction or black soap bath, body incisions or medicinal scarifications, dietary supplementary diets or fasting, prayer or incantations, mind-body interventions (mind–body interventions in this study was conceived as the use of the mind ability through meditation and prayer, and other inspired channels involving music and dance to alter physical symptoms), heat therapy, bone-setting and spinal manipulation. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics and Research Committee of the Institute of Public Health, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

Statistical analysis

Data was summarized by using the descriptive statistics of mean, standard deviation, range and percentages. Prevalence of CAM use was estimated as the proportion of the sample population of the eligible respondents with MSP who reported a positive history (lifetime or within the past 12 months) or current use of CAM. Data was completed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 16.0.

Results

The mean age of the respondents was 41.2 ± 16 years. The respondents were mostly married (83.3 %), within the age bracket of 35-44 yrs (26.4 %), of Islamic faith (77.3 %) and with no formal education (62 %). The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. The lifetime, 12-month and current prevalence of CAM for MSP were all 96.8 % respectively. Modes of CAM use within the past 12-month to the study showed that Herbal therapy (83.8 %) and massage (80.1 %) were mostly employed for MSP. Similarly, Herbal therapy (37.5 %) and massage (37.5 %) were the most commonly used therapies among current CAM users (Table 2). From this study, 69.9 % of the respondents indicated Islamic religion influenced their predisposition to CAM use while 15.3 % of those of Christian belief reported that their religion influence their use of CAM for MSP.
Table 1

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N = 216)

Variable

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Age

  

<25 yrs

38

17.6

25-34 yrs

36

16.7

35-44 yrs

57

26.4

45-54 yrs

38

17.6

55-64 yrs

18

8.3

>65 yrs

29

13.4

Sex

  

Male

108

50.0

Female

108

50.0

Marital Status

  

Single

34

15.7

Married

180

83.3

Separated

2

0.9

Religion

  

Islam

167

77.3

Christianity

41

19.0

Others

8

3.7

Educational qualification

  

Primary

42

19.4

Secondary

38

17.6

Tertiary

2

0.9

None

134

62.0

Ethnicity

  

Yoruba

166

76.9

Igbo

5

2.3

Togolese

15

6.9

Others

30

13.9

Monthly Income

  

<N7500

171

79.2

N7500-N15000

34

15.7

N15000-N50000

11

5.1

N Naira. N165.50 at the time of the study was equivalent to $1

Table 2

Lifetime, 12-month and point prevalence and pattern of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use for musculoskeletal pain (N = 216)

Variable

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Lifetime Prevalence of CAM use

  

Yes

209

96.8

No

7

3.2

12-month Prevalence of CAM use

  

Yes

209

96.8

No

7

3.2

Point/Current Prevalence of CAM use

  

Yes

209

96.8

No

7

3.2

Pattern of within 12-month previous use of CAM

  

Herbal therapy

181

83.8

Massage

173

80.1

Concoction and black soap bath

130

60.2

Body incisions or medicinal scarifications

24

11.1

Dietary supplementary diets or fasting

2

1.0

Prayer or incantations

14

6.5

Heat therapy

16

7.4

Mind-body intervention

33

15.3

Others

3

1.5

Pattern of Current use of CAM

  

Herbal therapy

81

37.5

Massage

81

37.5

Concoction and black soap bath

36

16.7

Body incisions or medicinal scarifications

13

6

Prayers

6

2.8

Heat therapy

14

6.5

Mind-body intervention

71

32.8

Others

24

11.1

Table  3 shows the health care practices and the use of CAM for musculoskeletal pain among the respondents. A majority (75.5 %) of the respondents used CAM exclusively for MSP, while 23.6 % used CAM in addition to orthodox medicine. CAM for MSP was used on daily (21.8 %), weekly (13.9 %), monthly (5.6 %) and annual (3.2 %) basis by the respondents. A majority of the respondents believed that CAM is very good in maintaining a healthy life (87.1 %) and has less side effects (74 %). 63.4 % of the respondents believed that CAM involves natural plant formulas which are more healthy than taking drugs given by the medical doctors. 87 % of the respondents believed that more people would likely use CAM if the government will develop them and open CAM clinics. 63.7 % of the respondents believed that CAM is more effective in healing than orthodox medicine. 44.5 % of the respondents disagreed with the opinion that people who do not have money for treatment from medical doctors are more likely to use CAM. The respondents’ belief about the use of CAM for MSP is presented in Table 4.
Table 3

Complementary and alternative treatment of musculoskeletal pain (N = 216)

Variable

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Pattern of CAM use

  

CAM only

163

75.5

CAM with Orthodox medicine

51

23.6

Total

214

99.1

Missing system

2

0.9

Frequency of use of CAM

  

None

36

16.7

Anytime with pain

81

37.5

Daily

47

21.8

Weekly

30

13.9

Monthly

12

5.6

Annually

7

3.2

Less than once a year

3

1.4

Total

216

100.0

Frequency of visits to CAM Practitioners

  

None

134

62.0

Anytime there is pain

44

20.4

Daily

12

5.6

Weekly

10

4.6

Monthly

13

6.0

Others

3

1.5

Total

216

100.0

Table 4

Belief about Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) (N = 216)

 

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Item

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

1. CAM is very good in maintaining a healthy life

188 (87.1)

23 (10.6)

5 (2.3)

2. There are less side effects when taking CAM therapies

160 (74.1)

33 (15.3)

21 (9.7)

3. CAM are healthier than taking conventional drugs

137 (63.4)

42 (19.4)

37 (17.1)

4. CAM use will increase if the government will develop it

188 (87.0)

23 (10.7)

5 (2.3)

5. CAM enhances the body’s own defense mechanism and promotes self-healing

183 (84.8)

26 (12.0)

7 (3.2)

6. The more knowledge about CAM, the more the use

190 (88.0)

23 (10.6)

3 (1.4)

7. Parents should teach their children about CAM

192 (88.9)

21 (9.7)

3 (1.4)

8. The more the friends that use CAM the more likely to use CAM

180 (83.3)

22 (10.2)

14 (6.5)

9. CAM is more effective than orthodox medicine

142 (65.7)

37 (17.1)

7 (3.2)

10. CAM is good for the physical, mental and spiritual health

6 (2.8)

177 (81.9)

33 (15.3)

11. The more the fears for conventional medicine, the more likely to use CAM

104 (48.2)

28 (13.0)

84 (38.9)

12. People who do not have money are likely to use CAM

86 (39.8)

34 (15.7)

96 (44.4)

Discussion

This present study found a high prevalence of 96.8 % on the use of CAM for MSP among Nigerian rural farmers. This finding is consistent with literature reports on high and increasing use of CAM for MSP worldwide [6, 7]. Epidemiological data indicate that about 28 to 90 % of people with musculoskeletal disorders such as arthritis use CAM [4953]. Some country-specific details reveal that about 20 % of patients in the Netherlands [54], 32.3 % in South Korea [55], 49 % in France [54] and as many as 82 % in the United State [56] use CAM for conditions such as musculoskeletal disorders. A WHO reports also submit that 70-80 % of patients in developed countries use at least one form of CAM [57].

From this study, 23.6 % of the rural farmers reported use of CAM in combination with conventional medicine. This finding buttresses a report that combination of CAM with conventional therapies is most commonly used in MSP [58]. Survey reports from the United Kingdom found that between 39 and 83 % of patients consulting general practitioners were active in the use of CAM [15, 59, 60]. A Croatia study by Čižmešija et al. [61] found a prevalence rate of 53.5 % while a survey in the USA, found that 21 % of patients visiting with their primary care physicians, had used CAM treatment for the medical condition associated with that physician visit [62]. However, there is a paucity of exclusive studies on use of CAM for MSP among farmers. Nonetheless, a study on use of CAM among patients with chronic diseases in Croatia found a prevalence of 54.8 % among farmers [63]. Cuelar [64] stated that people in rural areas experience a variety of unmet medical needs probably as a result of limited access to primary care, fewer resources to choose from, lower income, less comprehensive healthcare system, lower level of formal education and geographic isolation. In like manner, this present study setting and people seem to be share similar characteristics with the above description. It is adduced that the above stated factors may have contributed to the high prevalence of CAM use for MSP in this study.

This study found that herbal therapy and massage were the most often employed CAM for MSP. This study correlates with some previous findings that reported that use of herbal remedies is relatively common in most developing countries with a prevalence of 20–80 % [3032]. According to Singh et al. [31], the most commonly used form of CAM in Nigeria is herbal preparations. Also, Bernard et al. [65] reported that Hispanic and African American adults with arthritis were more likely to take herbs orally, or use ointments and were less likely to see a physician for arthritis than were non-Hispanic whites. Rural dwelling individuals may feel the need to use herbal therapy and massage due to the perceived efficacy of these interventions based on folklore or family traditions and the availability of these practices.

From this study, about 70 % of the farmers indicated that their CAM use decisions were influenced by Islamic religion. Religion plays an important role in the choice of health approaches. However, this study did not set out to investigate the role of religion on CAM use. The high number of respondents indicating that Islam influence their decision for use of CAM for MSP may just be as a result of high number of Muslims in the study. Furthermore, this study also revealed a wide range of CAM practices. Exclusive and inclusive use of CAM for MSP was common among Nigerian rural farmers. However, the higher rate of exclusive use of CAM than in combination with conventional therapy in this study may be due to beliefs that CAM alone may sufficiently treat all MSP. According to Bukovcan [66], the most frequently mentioned reason for the use of CAM is the need of a specific therapy who will help them solve the problem which conventional medicine has not recognized or has not found a solution for. This study also shows that a majority of the farmers believed that CAM is very good in maintaining a healthy life and that there were fewer side effects to CAM use for MSP. The farmers believed that CAM are derived from natural plant and are healthier than taking conventional drugs given by a medical doctor, and that CAM is more effective in healing. The farmers also believed that more people would likely use CAM if the government will develop them and open CAM clinics. The beliefs expressed above may be attributable to the users’ perceived efficacy of the CAM. These beliefs and speculations are consistent with previous reports on reasons for CAM use in other populations [6769].

The finding of this study on CAM use for MSP among rural dwellers is an empirical submission of a common anecdote in a previously unexplored African setting. Therefore, physicians, physiotherapists and other health care professionals involved in the management of MSP should come to term with the realities of high and increasing use of CAM for MSP among rural dwellers in Nigeria. Instead of dissuading sufferers of MSP from using CAM as commonly practiced by health care professionals, and also the frequent denials of CAM use by patients seeking conventional medicine, it is recommended that health care professionals should enquires about CAM use on a habitual basis. This may help to circumvent and minimize the risks of potential interactions of therapeutic interventions with harmful natural pharmaceutical substance, as well as advance physician-patient relationship and the possibility of formal integration of CAM into conventional practice. Also, the high prevalence and wide range of perceived benefits of CAM use stresses the need for more research into benefits and dangers of herbal remedies and other supplements in Nigeria.

This study was carried out exclusively among rural farmers; therefore, its finding cannot be generalized to other populations and settings in Nigeria. Furthermore, this study assessed the lifetime, 12 months period and point prevalence and modes of CAM use for MSP which could also lead to possible misclassification due to recall bias that is typical of all cross-sectional or self-report studies. It is also possible that some of the respondents in our study may have other pain but perceived as MSP. In addition, a cross-sectional design as employed in this study may not be sufficient to provide evidence on the option of pattern of use of CAM as exclusive or combined with conventional treatments offered by physicians. However, a scaling up of this study on a nationwide platform in the general population and in specific disease conditions is warranted in order to provide a more representative data for policy formulation on CAM use for MSP in Nigeria.

Conclusion

It was found that the prevalence of CAM use for MSP among Nigerian rural farmers was high with herbal remedies and massage as the most frequently employed therapies. Therefore, health care providers in Nigeria must acknowledge the high use of CAM for MSP among rural farmers and this may influence how health care is administered. Furthermore, these findings may assist to close the gap on the dearth of empirical information on CAM use among rural farmers in Nigerian.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC), Nairobi, Kenya for providing technical support through the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship (ADDRF) Post-Doctoral Fellowship. ADDRF Post-Doctoral Fellowship is funded by the International Development and Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. We gratefully acknowledge the Baale of Gudugbu and the entire community for their permission and co-operation during the survey.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Medical Rehabilitation, College of Health Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University
(2)
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex
(3)
Department of Community Health, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex

References

  1. Bergman S, Herrström P, Högström K, Petersson IF, Svensson B, Jacobsson LT. Chronic musculoskeletal pain, prevalence rates, and socio-demographic associations in a Swedish population study. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(6):1369–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D, Lipton R. Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the UW workforce. JAMA. 2003;290:2443–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedson J, Mottram S, Thomas E, Peat G. Knee pain and osteoarthritis in the general population: what influences patients to consult? Fam Pract. 2007;24:443–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Wootton JC, Sparber A. Surveys of complementary and alternative medicine: part I. General trends and demographic groups. J Altern Complement Med. 2001;7:195–208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1548–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Artus M, Croft P, Lewis M. The use of CAM and conventional treatments among primary care consulters with chronic musculoskeletal pain. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8:26. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-8-26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Grazio S, Balen D. Complementary and alternative treatment of musculoskeletal pain. Acta Clin Croat. 2011;50(4):513–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ernst E, Resch KL, Mills S, Hill R, Mitchell A, Willoghby A, et al. Complementary medicine: a definition. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45:506.PubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Olatunde S, Boon H, Hirschkorn K, Welsh S, Bajcar J. Roles and responsibilities of pharmacists with respect to natural health products: key informant interviews. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2010;6(1):63–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Tilburt JC, Kaptchuk TJ. Herbal medicine research and global health: an ethical analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(8):577–656.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. NCCIH’s current strategic plan, Exploring the Science of Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2011. Third Strategic Plan 2011–2015, https://nccih.nih.gov/about/plans. Accessed 19/03/2015.
  12. Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL. Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults and Children: United States, 2007. National Health Statistics Report. US Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008; Number 12. Pp 1–24. https://nccih.nih.gov/ . Accessed 19/03/2015.
  13. World Health Organization. Traditional medicine. 2008. WHO Fact Sheet No. 134 http://www.who.int/topics/traditional_medicine/en/.Accessed 12/04/2014
  14. Emslie M, Campbell M, Walker K. Complementary therapies in a local healthcare setting. Part 1: Is there real public demand? Complement Ther Med. 1996;4:39–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Thomas KJ, Coleman P, Nicholl JP. Trends in access to complementary or alternative medicines via primary care in England: 1995–2001 Results from a follow-up national survey. Fam Pract. 2003;20:575–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomas KJ, Nicholl JP, Coleman P. Use and expenditure on complementary medicine in England: a population based survey. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9:2–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States. Prevalence, costs and patterns of use. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:246–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenberger NI, Lieberman M. Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In: Williams KD, editor. The social outcast: ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, & bullying (Sydney symposium of social psychology). East Sussex: Psychology Press; 2005. p. 210. ISBN 1-84169-424-X.Google Scholar
  19. Pinchuck T, Clark R. Medicine for beginners. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative Ltd.; 1984.Google Scholar
  20. Reilly D. Complementary and Alternative medicine in Europe: reflections and trends, The International Symposium Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of Asan Medical Center. 1999. p. 61–71.Google Scholar
  21. Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, Ozden G, Scott JA, Panteli V, et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(4):655–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. National Institutes of Health. www.nih.gov/about/almanac/organization/NCCAM.htm. Accessed 12/08/2014.
  23. Cha YS. Status of health care system related to complementary medicine. Res Inst Healthcare Pol Korean Med Assoc. 2007;5:51–7.Google Scholar
  24. Yoon BB. Understanding and misconceptions about complementary medicine: it would be safe under the supervision and command of doctor. Res Inst Healthcare Pol Korean Med Assoc. 2007;5:29–33.Google Scholar
  25. Park JS, Shin BC, Kim CB, et al. A policy proposal for the Korean collaboration of Eastern and Western medicine according to a model of the Chinese integrative medicine. J Res Inst Korean Med Daejeon Univ. 2010;19(1):1–7.Google Scholar
  26. Chung VC, Ma PH, Lau CH, Griffiths SM. Developing policy for integrating biomedicine and traditional Chinese medical practice using focus groups and the Delphi technique. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;11:149512.Google Scholar
  27. Ryu JS, Choi BH, Lim BM, Kim SK, Yun YJ. Medical practices and attitudes of dual-licensed medical doctors in Korea. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;7:183643.Google Scholar
  28. Shirwaikar A, Govindarajan R, Rawat AKS. Integrating complementary and alternative medicine with primary health care. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;3:948308.Google Scholar
  29. Wang B-R, Choi IY, Kim K-J, Kwon YD. Use of traditional Korean medicine by patients with musculoskeletal disorders. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63209.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Michie CA. The use of herbal remedies in Jamaica. Ann Trop Paediat. 1992;12:31–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh V, Raidoo DM, Harris CS. The prevalence, pattern of usage and people's attitude towards complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among the Indian community in Chatsworth. South Africa BMC Complement Altern Med. 2004;4:3. doi:10.1186/1472-6882 -4-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Amira CO, Okubadejo NU. Frequency of complementary and alternative medicine utilization in hypertensive patients attending an urban tertiary care centre in Nigeria. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007;7:30. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-7-30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Cizmesija T, Bergman-Markovac B. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients in primary health care. Acta Med Croatica. 2008;62:15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Adesina SK. Traditional medical care in Nigeria. http://www.onlinenigeria.com/links/LinksReadPrint.asp?blurb=574. Accessed 14/04/2014
  35. Ajaiyeoba EO, Falade CO, Fawole OI, Akinboye DO, Gbotosho GO, Bolaji OM, et al. Efficacy of herbal remedies used by herbalists in Oyo State Nigeria for treatment of Plasmodium falciparum infections – a survey and an observation. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2004;33(2):115–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Okeke TA, Okafor HU, Uzochukwu BS. Traditional healers in Nigeria: perception of cause, treatment and referral practices of severe malaria. J Bio Soc Sci. 2006;38:491–500.Google Scholar
  37. Danesi MA, Adetunji JB. Use of alternative medicine by patients with epilepsy: a survey of 265 epileptic patients in a developing country. Epilepsia. 1994;35:344–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Onyiapat JE, Okoronkwo IL, Ogbonnaya NP. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults in Enugu. Nigeria BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:19. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-11-19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Akinsulie AO, Temiye EO, Akanmu AS, Lesi FE, Whyte CO. Clinical evaluation of extract of Cajanuscajan (Ciklavit) in sickle cell anaemia. J Trop Pediatr. 2005;51:200–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Omokhodion FO. Low back pain in a rural community in South West Nigeria. West Afr J Med. 2002;21(2):87–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Fabunmi AA, Aba SO, Odunaiya NA. Prevalence of low back pain among peasant farmers in a rural community in South West Nigeria. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2005;34:259–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Akinpelu AO, Odole A, Odejide AS. Prevalence and Pattern of Musculoskeletal Pain in a Rural Community in Southwestern Nigeria. The Internet Journal of Epidemiology. 2009: 8(2) https://ispub.com/IJE/8/2/5433.
  43. Birabi BN, Dienye PO, Ndukwu PO. Prevalence of low back pain among peasant farmers in a rural community in South-South Nigeria. Rural Remote Health. 2012;12:1920.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. National Bureau of Statistics. Social Statistics in Nigeria. Abuja: The NBS Publication, 2009. www.nigerianstat.gov.ng. Accessed 18/08/2014
  45. World Health Organization. Guidelines for conducting community surveys on injuries and violence. Edited by Sethi D, Habibula S, McGee K, Peden M, Bennet S, Hyder AA, Klevens J, Odero W, Suriyawongpaisal P. World Health Organization, Geneva. 2004 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546484.pdf.
  46. Ramsey SD, Spencer AC, Topolski TD, Belza B, Patrick DL. Use of alternative therapies by older adults with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45(3):222–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Herman CJ, Allen P, Hunt WC, Prasad A, Brady TJ. Use of complementary therapies among primary care clinic patients with arthritis. Prev Chronic Dis. 2004;1(4):A12.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Patterson C, Arthur H. A complementary alternative medicine questionnaire for young adults. Integr Med Insights. 2009;4:1–11.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaboli PJ, Doebbeling BN, Saag KG, Rosenthal GE. Use of complementary and alternative medicine by older patients with arthritis: a population-based study. Arthr Rheum. 2001;45(4):398–403.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Quandt SA, Chen H, Gryzywacz JG, Bell RA, Lang W, Arcury TA. Use of complementary and alternative medicine by persons with arthritis: results of the National Health Interview Survey. Arthr Rheum. 2005;53(5):748–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Sleath B, Callahan L, DeVellis RF, Sloane PD. Patients’ perceptions of primary care physicians’ participatory decision-making style and communication about complementary and alternative medicine for arthritis. J Complement Alt Med. 2005;11(3):449–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Saydah SH, Eberhardt MS. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among adults with chronic disease: United States, 2002. J Complement Alt Med. 2006;12(8):805–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Rao JK, Mihaliak K, Kroenke K, Bradley J, Tierney WM, Weinberger M. Use of complementary therapies for arthritis among patients of rheumatologists. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(6):409–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary medicine in Europe. BMJ. 1994;309:107–11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang B-R, Choi IY, Kim K-J, Kwon YD. Use of traditional Korean medicine by patients with musculoskeletal disorders. PLoS One. 2013;8(5), e63209. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063209.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Callahan LF, Wiley-Exley EK, Mielenz TJ, et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with arthritis. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6:44.Google Scholar
  57. World Health Organization. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy2002-2005. Geneva: WHO Health Organization; 2002.http://www.wpro.who.int/health_technology/book_who_traditional_medicine_strategy_2002_2005.pdf. Html. Accessed 12/03/2015.
  58. Wolsko PM, Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Kessler R, Phillips RS. Patterns and perceptions of care for treatment of back and neck pain. Results of a national survey. Spine. 2003;28(3):292–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Perry R, Dowrick CF. Complementary medicine and the general practice: an urban perspective. Complement Ther Med. 2000;8:71–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Lewith GT, Hayland M, Gray SF. Attitudes to and use of complementary medicine among physicians in the United Kingdom. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9:167–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Čižmešija T, Bergman-Markovac B. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients in primary health care. Acta Med Croatica. 2008;62:15–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Palinkas LA, Kabongo ML, The SURF*NET study group. The use of complementary and alternative medicine by primary care patients. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(12):1121–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Mollaoğlu M, Aciyurt A. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with chronic diseases. Acta Clin Croat. 2013;52:181–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Cuellar N, Butts JB. Caregiver distress: what nurses in rural settings can do to help. Nurs Forum. 1999;34:24–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Bernard SL, Jordan JM, Cook HL. Gender and ethnic differences in alternative and conventional arthritis remedy use among community-dwelling rural adults with arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1996;9:384–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Bukovčan T. I want to choose whom I love and where to I go for treatment– activism in researching CAM in Croatia. Ethnological Res. 2008;77–85.Google Scholar
  67. Barry PJ, Kemper KJ. Alternative medicine use by homeless youth. Achieves Paediatric Adolescent Med. 1998;152(11):1071–5.Google Scholar
  68. Billot L, Mouchtouris A, Deschamps JP, Romero MI, Zubarew T. French adolescent attitudes towards informal care for physical and emotional or relational problems. Acta Paediatr. 2002;9(4):466–74.Google Scholar
  69. Arthur H, Noesgaard C. Exploring adolescent complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) use in Canada. J Interprof Care. 2007;22(1):45–55.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Mbada et al. 2015

Advertisement