Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Herbal medicine use by pregnant women in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine201818:333

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2399-y

  • Received: 24 July 2018
  • Accepted: 4 December 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Herbal medicines in pregnancy are increasingly used worldwide with prevalence of up to 67%. Although this popularity is mainly because of the common belief that these medicines are safe, recent reports suggest that several herbal medicines are potentially harmful to mother and fetus if used in pregnancy.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in July and August of year 2017, at maternity wards of two public hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Postpartum women were interviewed via the structured questionnaire to collect information regarding socio-demographic and health characteristics, patterns of herbal medicines used in the previous pregnancy, and outcome of pregnancy.

Results

Two hundred forty-three postpartum women participated in the study, with 70% of them using at least one modality of herbal medicines in previous pregnancy. Ginger, black seed, lemon tea, prune, and mustard oil were most commonly used herbal medicines. Herbal medicines were mostly used for pregnancy-related symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and cold. Fifteen (8.8%) herbal medicine users reported side effects.

Conclusions

This study highlights popularity of herbal medicines during pregnancy in Bangladesh. Previous herbal medicine users and unemployed women turned significantly more to herbal medicines during pregnancy. Reports of side effects and use of some potentially harmful modalities warrant awareness regarding proper use of herbal medicines in pregnancy and its pharmacovigilance.

Keywords

  • Herbal medicines
  • Pregnancy outcome
  • Safety
  • Bangladesh

Background

Globally, sales of herbs have sharply been increasing, and herbal medicines (HM) are increasingly used to prevent and treat various illnesses [1]. The prevalence of HM use in pregnancy has been reported in various countries, including Iran (67%) [2], Jordan (60%) [3], the United Kingdom (58%) [4], Iraq (54%) [5], Italy (48%) [6], Norway (40%) [7], Palestine (40%) [8], and Australia (34%) [9]. The popularity of HM among pregnant women is mainly because of the common belief that herbs are natural and free of any adverse effects that are usually associated with conventional drugs [10, 11]. HM can be obtained without prescription of a qualified healthcare practitioner in most countries, especially in the developing world where plants with medicinal properties can be easily purchased and herbs can also be obtained as unregulated food products, such as spices, that do not go through pharmaceutical regulatory processes [12]. Hence, there is a risk of adulteration with undeclared chemicals and contamination with heavy metals such as arsenic [13]. Additionally, herbs contain biologically active ingredients that have a potential to mediate pharmacological actions; thus, HM may produce adverse effects [14].

However, due to a lack of data on efficacy and safety of HM use in pregnancy, pregnant women have very little knowledge about the efficacy and safety of using these medicines [15]. Moreover, among the HM users in pregnancy, 39% of them used HM that were either potentially harmful to use in pregnancy or information on the safety was unavailable [16]. A recent multinational study, classifying safety of herbal medicines used in pregnancy, reported that out of 126 different HM, only 22% of these medicines were safe to use in pregnancy based on current scientific literature [17]. More recently, authors of this study have shown that out of 31 most commonly used modalities of HM by Asian pregnant women, 18 were potentially harmful to use in pregnancy [18]. Other researchers have tried to determine the possible effects of HM used in pregnancy on its outcome. Chuang et al. reported that consumption of certain Chinese HM in pregnancy was associated with increased incidence of congenital malformation of multiple organs [19]. Later, another report suggested that women using licorice and chamomile during pregnancy had higher incidence of threatening miscarriage and preterm labor, and newborns of herbal medicine users were smaller for their gestational age [20]. However, little is known about the possible effects of using HM during pregnancy on its outcome in low and middle income countries.

Moreover, in high income countries such as the USA, the UK and Australia, healthcare providers and consumers can report side effects of drugs, including HM, to the government authorities by filling out a prescribed form [21]. The process commonly known as Spontaneous Reporting in Pharmacovigilance. Whereas in the developing countries such as Bangladesh, there is no such mechanism neither in health facilities nor at community level. Consequently, the adverse effects experienced by consumers may remain undocumented. The aim of this research was to determine the prevalence of HM used in pregnancy by women in one region of Bangladesh, characteristics of its use, and possible adverse effects on the outcome of pregnancy.

Methods

Study setting and participants

This study was a descriptive cross-sectional in design, conducted at two public hospitals – Dhaka Mohanagar Hospital and Nazirabazar Maternity Hospital – in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Postpartum women before discharge from the hospitals were eligible to take part in the survey. Exclusion criteria were women who were in intensive care unit, in high dependency unit or were being managed for a severe condition. Women unable to speak or mentally unstable were also excluded. This study was part of a multinational research for which ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board on Human Subjects Research and Ethics Committees, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea (HYI-17-067-2). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Survey instrument

After reviewing the literature [5, 20], the survey questionnaire was developed in English and then translated into Bengali language to suit the target population. The Bengali questionnaire was back translated into English to confirm the validity. Face validity of the questionnaire was done by two physicians in the target hospitals and a traditional medicine healthcare practitioner. The questionnaire was then pilot tested on a sample of 20 participants and based on the results, a few items were revised. Final version of the questionnaire comprised 30 items, with multiple choice, and open-ended questions (See Additional file 1: Survey questionnaire). It was divided into five sections. First section included general questions such as health status, mode of delivery, gravidity, exposure to secondary smoking, and antenatal care services. A question on maternal smoking was included in the questionnaire for pilot study, which showed no smoker out of 20 participants. Physicians in the target hospitals suggested to omit the question on the grounds that social norms and traditional values do not favor smoking by young girls or women in South Asian countries including Bangladesh [22]. Therefore, it was suggested that if such a question was included, there was a risk not to get any response or to get false positive or false negative answer. The question was, therefore, excluded, and question on secondary smoking was included. Multiple studies have found association between maternal exposure to passive smoking and low birth weight [2325]. It is reported that pregnant women are consistently exposed to home smoking in many countries, especially in the developing countries where legislations on active and passive smoking are rather weak. High number of pregnant women exposed to home smoking is also reported from Asian countries including Bangladesh [26].

Second section comprised questions on morbidities during pregnancy (polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, convulsions, fainting, high grade fever, severe anemia, premature rupture of water bag, severe headache, placenta previa, placental abruption gestational diabetes, hypertension, urinary tract infections, hyperemesis), complications during labor and maternal complications after childbirth (fetal distress, prolonged labor, abnormal presentation, profuse bleeding, urinary and fecal incontinence, severe anemia, smelly vaginal discharge, severe headache, high grade fever, convulsions, postpartum haemorrhage, postpartum depression, haemorrhoids). Third section included questions regarding herbal medicines use such as, modalities of herbal medicines and their indications, side effects if any, frequency of use, source of recommendation on herbal medicines use in pregnancy, disclosure of use with doctor or midwife, reason of use and non-use. To ensure that respondents only report HM used for medicinal purposes, the question was asked, “Did you use any herb or herbal preparation (syrup, paste, powder) for medicinal purposes or to improve your health during your last pregnancy?” Fourth section of the questionnaire included characteristics of the newborn baby such as birth weight, any birth defect and neonatal symptoms (neonatal jaundice, breathing problems, cardiac symptoms, tender or tense abdomen, convulsions, unconsciousness, bowel problems, lethargy or no activity). The fifth and final section asked questions related to sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. Monthly household income was categorized into three groups: low income (< $200), middle income ($201 - $400), and high income (> $400).

Data collection

One supervisor (MAH) and four data collectors were trained and participated in the process of data collection. They were in regular contact with the main researcher (MA). Experienced female data collectors were recruited to make sure accurate data were collected. Experienced and female interviewers are more likely to be friendly and generate a good response rate [27]. A total of 300 women were invited to participate in the study when they were shifted to maternity wards after the childbirth. The participation was entirely voluntary and a complete anonymity was ensured. Information related to complications during labor, after birth, and newborn characteristics was collected with the help of hospital staff. Whereas, other questions were asked from the participants themselves. The survey was conducted from July 4 to August 12, 2017.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were entered in the Microsoft Excel and were analyzed using software Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) v. 21. Respondents were categorized as users if they used at least one modality of herbal medicine in their previous pregnancy, whereas others were categorized as non-users. The descriptive statistics were computed as frequency and percentage. To determine the correlation for several characteristics between users and non-users of herbal medicines, Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were executed. P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics

A total of 300 women were invited to the study and only 243 agreed to participate in the survey, generating a response rate of 81%. Data of 243 postpartum women were included in the final analysis. Sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1. Mean age of the respondents was 26.22 ± 5.54 years. Fifty-eight per cent aged 21 to 30 years, 88.1% belonged to urban areas, 63% had up to elementary school, 12.8% were employed, 65.4% were from middle income group, and 63.4% of the participants reported that it took less than 30 min to get to the nearest health facility.
Table 1

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

Variables

Total = 243

N (%)

HM users =170

N (%)

Non-users =73

N (%)

p-Value

Mean age (years)

26.2 ± 5.5

26.2 ± 5.6

26.2 ± 5.5

 

 20 years and below

51 (21)

35 (20.6)

16 (21.9)

0.896

 21–30 years

141 (58)

98 (57.6)

43 (58.9)

 31 years and above

51 (21)

37 (21.8)

14 (19.2)

Residence

 Rural

29 (11.9)

17 (10)

12 (16.4)

0.156

 Urban

214 (88.1)

153 (90)

61 (83.6)

Education level

 Elementary school or under

153 (63)

113 (66.5)

40 (54.8)

0.084

 High school or above

90 (37)

57 (33.5)

33 (45.2)

Employed

 Yes

31 (12.8)

12 (7.1)

19 (26)

0.000

X2 = 16.510

 No (housewife)

212 (87.2)

158 (92.9)

54 (74)

Household income

 Low income

29 (12)

20 (11.8)

9 (12.3)

0.297

 Middle income

159 (65.4)

116 (68.2)

43 (58.9)

 High income

55 (22.6)

34 (20)

21 (28.8)

Time to the nearest health facility

 Less than 30 min

154 (63.4)

109 (64.1)

45 (61.6)

0.783

 30 min to 1 h

76 (31.3)

53 (31.2)

23 (31.5)

 More than 1 h

13 (5.3)

8 (4.7)

5 (6.9)

HM: Herbal Medicine

Medical characteristics

Tables 2 and 3 presents medical characteristics of the study participants. Overall, 63.8% of the childbirths were conducted via normal delivery (includes forceps delivery), 77% of the childbirths were full term, 56.4% of women had one to 3 antenatal visits, 67.1% of the women were exposed to secondary smoking, 65.4% were multigravida, 45.3% women had experienced their first pregnancy between 20 to 24 years of age, 55.6% used HM prior to last pregnancy, and 40.7% experienced at least one morbidity during pregnancy.
Table 2

Medical characteristics of participants

Variables

Total = 243

N (%)

HM users =170

N (%)

Non-users =73

N (%)

p-Value

Prior use of Herbal Medicine

 Yes

135 (55.6)

102 (60)

33 (45.2)

0.033

X2 = 4.527

 No

108 (44.4)

68 (40)

40 (54.8)

Antenatal visits

 None

45 (18.5)

32 (18.8)

13 (17.8)

0.490

 1 to 3 times

137 (56.4)

99 (58.2)

38 (52.1)

 4 or more times

61 (25.1)

39 (23)

22 (30.1)

Exposed to passive smoking

 Yes

163 (67.1)

114 (67.1)

49 (67.1)

0.992

 No

80 (32.9)

56 (32.9)

24 (32.9)

Gravidity

 Primigravida

84 (34.6)

57 (33.5)

27 (37)

0.603

 Multigravida

159 (65.4)

113 (66.5)

46 (63)

Age at first pregnancy

 19 years or under

100 (41.1)

66 (38.8)

34 (46.6)

0.531

 20 to 24 years

110 (45.3)

80 (47.1)

30 (41.1)

 25 years or above

33 (13.6)

24 (14.1)

9 (12.3)

Morbidities during pregnancy

 Yes

99 (40.7)

75 (44.1)

24 (32.9)

0.102

 No

144 (59.3)

95 (55.9)

49 (67.1)

HM: Herbal Medicine

Table 3

Pregnancy outcomes of participants

Variables

Total = 243

N (%)

HM users =170

N (%)

Non-users =73

N (%)

p-Value

Perceived health status

 Good

172 (70.8)

124 (72.9)

48 (65.8)

0.259

 Fair or worse

71 (29.2)

46 (27.1)

25 (34.2)

Type of last delivery

 Normal (inc. forceps)

155 (63.8)

108 (63.5)

47 (64.4)

0.899

88 (36.2)

62 (36.5)

26 (35.6)

Pregnancy term

 Full term

187 (77)

133 (78.2)

54 (74)

0.469

 Pre term

56 (23)

37 (21.8)

19 (26)

Complications during and after childbirth

 Yes

96 (39.5)

70 (41.2)

26 (35.6)

0.416

 No

147 (60.5)

100 (58.8)

47 (64.4)

Birth weight

 Less than 2.5 kg

7 (2.9)

2 (2.3)

5 (6.8)

.067

 2.5 to 3 kg

154 (63.4)

109 (64.1)

45 (61.6)

 More than 3 kg

82 (33.7)

59 (34.7)

23 (31.5)

Neonatal symptoms

 Yes

128 (52.7)

95 (55.9)

33 (45.2)

.126

 No

115 (47.3)

75 (44.1)

40 (54.8)

HM: Herbal Medicine

No significant difference between users and non-users of HM were found in terms of morbidities during pregnancy, complications around childbirth, except for convulsions during pregnancy (add % and p value) and neonatal symptoms (add % and p value)

Characteristics of neonates

Characteristics of neonates are presented in Table 3. In terms of birth weight, 63.4% were between 2.5 to 3 kg, followed by more than 3 kg (33.7%). Neonatal symptoms were reported in 52.7% of the cases. There were seven (2.9%) cases of birth problems that included one case of cardiac anomaly and six cases of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (not shown in tables). Out of 243 childbirths, 50.2% were baby boys and 49.8% were baby girls (not shown in tables).

Characteristics of herbal medicine users

Out of 243 respondents (Tables 1 and 2), 70% used at least one modality of HM in their last pregnancy. HM were more commonly used among women who aged 21 to 30 years (57.6%), lived in urban areas (90%), had completed education up to elementary school (65.9%), unemployed (92.9%), belonged to middle income group (68.2%), and could access the nearest health facility in less than 30 min (64.1%). Chi square analysis showed that use of HM during pregnancy was significantly associated with women who were unemployed (X2 = 16.510; p value = 0.000).

Regarding medical characteristics, 60% of HM users had used HM prior to last pregnancy, had one to three antenatal care visits (58.2%), were exposed to passive smoking at home (67.1%), were multigravida (66.5%), and experienced first pregnancy between 20 to 24 years (47.1%). Chi square analysis showed that prior use of HM (X2 = 4.527; p value = 0.033) was significantly associated with its use during pregnancy.

Use of herbal medicines and pregnancy outcome

Use of HM in terms of pregnancy outcome is presented in Table 3. No significant association was found between use of HM and pregnancy outcome.

Modalities of herbal medicines and self-reported indications

Self-reported indications according to each modality of HM are presented in Table 4. The most frequently used HM – ginger – was used for nausea/vomiting (76.5%), cold/flu (30.4%), and cough (2.9%). Black seed was used for nausea/vomiting (60.3%), as galactagogue (39.7%), and for allergies (3.2%). Lemon tea was used for cough (59.2%) and nausea/vomiting (46.9%).
Table 4

Reported indications of herbal medicine according to each modality (multiple choice)

Herbal modality

Reported indication

N (%)

Ginger - Zingiber officinale (N = 102)

Nausea/vomiting

78 (76.5)

Cold/flu

31 (30.4)

Cough

3 (2.9)

Black seed - Nigella sativa (N = 63)

Nausea/vomiting

38 (60.3)

Galactagogue

25 (39.7)

Allergies

2 (3.2)

Lemon tea (N = 49)

Cough

29 (59.2)

Nausea/vomiting

23 (46.9)

Prune - Prunus domestica (N = 29)

Nausea/vomiting

23 (79.3)

Hypertension

4 (13.8)

Constipation

2 (6.9)

Mustard oil - Brassica nigra L. (N = 29)

Cold/flu

18 (62.1)

Improve immunity

7 (24.1)

Constipation

4 (13.8)

Garlic - Allium sativum (N = 26)

Hypertension

12 (46.2)

Cold/flu

12 (46.2)

Abdominal pain

3 (13)

Betel nuts - Areca catechu (N = 23)

As relaxant

20 (87)

Nausea/vomiting

3 (13)

Heartburn

1 (4.3)

Peppermint - Mentha piperita (N = 15)

Abdominal pain

8 (53.3)

Heartburn

4 (26.7)

Headache

2 (13.3)

Diabetes mellitus

1 (6.7)

Myrobalan - Terminalia chebula (N = 11)

Heartburn

5 (45.4)

Constipation

5 (45.4)

Nausea

2 (18.2)

Turmeric - Curcuma longa (N = 11)

Skin condition

8 (72.7)

Anti-inflammatory

3 (27.3)

Aloe vera (N = 4)

Stomach upset

3 (75)

Constipation

1 (25)

Olive oil (N = 3)

Massage

3 (100)

Neem - Azadirachta indica (N = 3)

Skin disease

3 (100)

Bitter gourd - Momordica charantia (N = 2)

Diabetes mellitus

2 (100)

Syrup Alkuli [Cichorium endivia, Tribulus terrestris, Foeniculum vulgare, Cucumis melo] (N = 2)

Urinary tract infection

2 (100)

Self-reported side effects

The most frequently reported side effects after its use during pregnancy were dry mouth (6), nausea/vomiting (3), drowsiness (3), diarrhea (2), and palpitation (1).

Recommendations of herbal medicines

As presented in Table 5, the main recommending source for HM is the members of their family, friends or neighbor (71.1%), followed by herbalist (28.2%), Islamic/religious text (24.7%), and midwife/health worker (20%).
Table 5

Patterns of herbal medicine use during pregnancy

Variables

Number (%)

Recommending source (N = 170) – multiple choice

 Family/friends/neighbor

121 (71.1)

 Herbalist

48 (28.2)

 Islamic/religious text

42 (24.7)

 Midwife/health worker

34 (20.0)

 Newspaper/magazine

16 (9.4)

 TV/radio/internet

10 (5.9)

 Doctor

9 (5.3)

Frequency of use (N = 170)

 Occasionally

92 (54.1)

 Daily

64 (37.6)

 Weekly

7 (4.1)

 Twice or more a week

5 (2.9)

 Only once

2 (1.2)

Disclosed with doctor or midwife (N = 170)

 Yes

43 (25.3)

 No

127 (74.7)

Reason of non-disclosure (N = 125)

 Should have informed but forgot

65 (52.0)

 Doctor did not ask

39 (31.2)

 Afraid of doctor’s response

12 (9.6)

 It was not important

9 (7.2)

Reason for using herbal medicines (N = 169) – multiple choice

 It is cheap and accessible

159 (94.1)

 I believe it is safe

116 (68.6)

 I believe it is effective

22 (13.0)

 Family tradition/culture

10 (5.9)

 Unsatisfied with modern medicine

4 (2.4)

Reason for not using herbal medicines (N = 73) – multiple choice

 My family did not let me use

45 (64.1)

 My doctor/midwife did not let me use

39 (53.4)

 It is not effective

15 (20.5)

 I am satisfied with modern medicine

10 (13.7)

Frequency of herbal medicines use

Among 170 users of herbal medicine (Table 5), 54.1% reported using it occasionally, daily (37.6%), weekly (4.1%), twice or more a week (2.9%), and only once (1.2%).

Disclosure of using herbal medicine

Among 170 users (Table 5), only 25.3% disclosed it to their doctor or midwife. The most frequently reported reasons for non-disclosure were forgot to inform (52%), followed by doctor did not ask (31.2%), afraid of doctor’s response (9.6%), and it was not important to disclose (7.2%).

Reasons for using and not using herbal medicines

Reasons for using HM during pregnancy are presented in Table 5. Among 169 users, the most frequently reported reasons for using HM were it was cheap and accessible (94.1%), followed by belief that it was safe (68.6%), belief that it was effective (13%), family tradition/culture (5.9%), and unsatisfied with modern medicine (2.4%). Among 73 non-users, the most frequently reported reasons for not using HM during pregnancy were family did not let them use (61.6%), followed by doctor or midwife did not let them use (53.4%), belief that it was not effective (20.5%), and satisfied with modern medicine (13.7%).

Discussion

This is the first study to investigate use of HM among Bangladeshi women and its possible effects on the outcome of pregnancy. The study followed cross-sectional design and data were collected via survey on postpartum women in two maternity hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The results show that the use of HM in pregnancy is common in Bangladesh.

It was found that 70% of the women used at least one herbal product during their last pregnancy. This prevalence rate is significantly quite high considering the fact that more than 88% of the sample resided in urban areas, and majority of the participants lived near to a health facility. These results suggest higher prevalence than previously reported from Asian and non-Asian countries [8, 20, 2831]. The difference in the prevalence of HM use could be explained by several factors such as culture, socio-demographic factors, and use of health care services.

Likely predictors of using HM among Bangladeshi women in pregnancy were unemployment and use of HM prior to last pregnancy, which is consistent with previous studies [5, 32]. The most common reasons to use HM were that these were cheap, accessible, and safe. A study from Ethiopia also reported that most of the women used HM in pregnancy because they considered these cheap and accessible [33]. Elsewhere, it has been reported that HM are consumed during pregnancy because these are considered natural and safe [34]. Moreover, the findings suggest that most of the women used HM occasionally or daily throughout their previous pregnancy, consistent with previous studies [3, 5]. These findings imply that women used HM occasionally when they needed to manage their symptoms or used on daily basis to stay healthy.

In this study, family, friends, and neighbors were the main source of recommendation for use of herbal medicines in pregnancy. Similar findings were reported by studies conducted in the United Kingdom and Iraq [5, 35]. These results are conceivable as family and friends are easily accessible, and usually the most trusted members of a society. Furthermore, a majority of study participants did not inform healthcare providers about their use of HM in pregnancy. When asked for the reason of this non-disclosure, most of them responded that they forgot and the healthcare providers did not ask them, consistent with a previous report [5]. It shows respondents’ lack of awareness about safety issues regarding use of HM in pregnancy. The findings also reflect poor communication between healthcare providers and their patients.

Ginger was the most frequently used modality of HM, and it was primarily used for relief of nausea/vomiting and cold/flu. Ginger has been widely used to treat pregnancy related morning sickness. However, there is a need for more data because its clinical value and safety profile in treating nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy is still unknown [36]. Black seed was frequently used for nausea/vomiting and as a galactagogue. It is suggested that this herb’s potential to increase the milk flow could be due to its constituents: lipid portion and hormonal structures [37]. Lemon tea was primarily used to soothe cough during pregnancy. Lemon may be suitable for treating mild cough during pregnancy [38]. However, it should be ensured that there is no underlying cause such as asthma or bacterial infection. Apart from garlic, a few women consumed prunes to treat their hypertension. A placebo controlled clinical study from Pakistan reported significant reduction in blood pressure following use of prunes [39].

Although modalities of HM reported in this study may have some benefit, certain herbs could be potentially harmful to use in pregnancy or the information about their safety may be lacking. For instance, information on safe use of black seed, prunes, and mustard oil during pregnancy is lacking and maternal use of betel nuts, terminalia, and turmeric is not recommended at higher doses. Indeed, a recent study reported that betel nuts chewing during pregnancy was associated with increased chances of anemia. [40]. Turmeric and terminalia, if ingested in doses higher than commonly found in food, can stimulate uterus and may trigger its emmenagogic and abortifacient effects during pregnancy [4143].

Participants of this study were asked to report any side effect following their use of HM in pregnancy. The findings show that among 170 users, side effects were reported in 15 instances (8.8%). In previous studies, the reported side effects ranged between 3.7 and 18% among HM users [20, 44]. Few participants of this study reported dry mouth and nausea/vomiting following their consumption of garlic in pregnancy. Similar adverse effects have been reported in the literature [45]. Moreover, two cases of diarrhea were reported following consumption of myrobalan or Terminalia chebula which is used to alleviate constipation [46]. In this study, five respondents used it for this symptom. It is possible that high doses of terminalia were taken to relieve severe constipation, resulting in diarrhea.

This study did not find any significant difference between users and non-users of HM in terms of morbidities during pregnancy, complications around childbirth, and neonatal symptoms. To evaluate the data even further, deep analyses of each herbal medicine were conducted to see their relationship with maternal and neonatal characteristics. No significant adverse effect of using individual modality of HM was found on the outcome of pregnancy. The number of cases with complications during childbirth was too small to make reliable inference based on statistical analysis. Further research will need to clarify if there is a relationship, using a larger sample size. Furthermore, there were six cases of blocked nasolacrimal duct which is a common neonatal condition.

This study showed that women during pregnancy used HM a lot. Information given by physician and midwives could help the pregnant women to use the herbs that have less risk [18]. Therefore, healthcare practitioners should maintain proper communication with their patients to ensure their health and safety [47]. Moreover, physician and midwives should not forget to ask pregnant women on HM use, and write it in the medical records, as it is written for drugs. Reports of side effects and recommendations by unqualified people suggest that there is need to establish an integrative pharmacovigilance of HM within communities and health facilities, especially in the maternity clinics. So that data regarding use of HM and herbs, their indications, and potential effects can be gathered. Such data would contribute to evidence based policymaking and health awareness campaigns in maternal and child health programs.

This study has several limitations. The data was collected from two maternity hospitals of Dhaka city. Therefore, it does not represent the entire population of Bangladesh and the findings cannot be extrapolated to whole country. Moreover, the study could not estimate the dose and frequency of ingestion of individual HM. There could be a recall bias in the questionnaire as it was retrospective data. However, asking before discharge could decrease this risk, as it was very close to the pregnancy. Another limitation is that the whole data is self-reported, even if there was the help of medical staff. A separate questionnaire should have been distributed to physicians and midwifes in order to be sure that it is not only self-reported. The major strength of this study is that this is the first attempt to see the relationship between maternal use of HM and outcome of pregnancy in South Asian region.

Conclusion

The results from this first study in Bangladesh highlight that the use of HM during pregnancy is common, and frequently recommended by informal caregivers. The high prevalence of HM use among pregnant women without consultation of a qualified healthcare practitioner highlights that physicians and midwives should ask about HM use. Lack of ample scientific evidence to support safety and efficacy of HM use in pregnancy demands health programs to focus on creating awareness among healthcare practitioners and community people on safe use of HM. Moreover, as previous use of HM before pregnancy is associated with use during pregnancy, general practitioners could already give some advices to women before pregnancy. High prevalence of HM use among pregnant women in our study warrants further studies in other countries.

Abbreviations

HM: 

Herbal Medicine

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to the women who participated in this study.

Funding

During the conduct of this study, MA was a PhD student in Hanyang University. He was a recipient of scholarship from Higher Education Commission, Pakistan and Hanyang University, South Korea. These institutes had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The data will be accessible by contacting the corresponding author of this study.

Authors’ contributions

Concept of the study was conceived and designed by MA and DW. MAH participated in data collection and MA analyzed the data. MA and JH drafted the manuscript. MA, JH and DW critically reviewed the manuscript and contributed intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final version of manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for the study was acquired from Institutional Review Boar on Human Subjects Research and Ethics Committees, Hanyang University (HYI-17-067-2). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biosciences, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
(2)
Institute of Health Services Management, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
(3)
Department of Global Health and Development & Department of Preventive Medicine, Hanyang University, College of Medicine, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, South Korea
(4)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hanyang University, College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
(5)
Dhaka Mohanagar General Hospital, South City Corporation, Dhaka, Bangladesh

References

  1. Dennis J. International Herb & Botanical Trends. Nutraceuticals World. 2012. http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/issues/2012-07/view_features/2012-international-herb-botanical-trends.
  2. Dabaghian FH, Abdollahi Fard M, Shojaei A, Kianbakht S, Zafarghandi N, Goushegir A. Use and attitude on herbal medicine in a group of pregnant women in Tehran. J Med Plants. 2012;1(41):22–33.Google Scholar
  3. Amasha H, Jarrah S. The use of home remedies by pregnant mothers as a treatment of pregnancy related complaints: An exploratory study. Med J Cairo University. 2012;80(1):673–80.Google Scholar
  4. Holst L, Wright D, Haavik S, Nordeng H. Safety and efficacy of herbal remedies in obstetrics—review and clinical implications. Midwifery. 2011;27(1):80–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Hwang JH, Kim Y-R, Ahmed M, Choi S, Al-Hammadi NQ, Widad NM, Han D. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in pregnancy: a cross-sectional survey on Iraqi women. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016;16(1):191.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Lapi F, Vannacci A, Moschini M, Cipollini F, Morsuillo M, Gallo E, Banchelli G, Cecchi E, Di Pirro M, Giovannini MG. Use, attitudes and knowledge of complementary and alternative drugs (CADs) among pregnant women: a preliminary survey in Tuscany. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2010;7(4):477–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Nordeng H, Bayne K, Havnen GC, Paulsen BS. Use of herbal drugs during pregnancy among 600 Norwegian women in relation to concurrent use of conventional drugs and pregnancy outcome. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2011;17(3):147–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaradat N, Adawi D. Use of herbal medicines during pregnancy in a group of Palestinian women. J Ethnopharmacol. 2013;150(1):79–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Frawley J, Adams J, Sibbritt D, Steel A, Broom A, Gallois C. Prevalence and determinants of complementary and alternative medicine use during pregnancy: results from a nationally representative sample of Australian pregnant women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53(4):347–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernst E. Herbal medicinal products during pregnancy: are they safe? BJOG. 2002;109(3):227–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnes LAJ, Barclay L, McCaffery K, Aslani P. Complementary medicine products used in pregnancy and lactation and an examination of the information sources accessed pertaining to maternal health literacy: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2018;18(1):229.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuzzolin L, Benoni G. Safety issues of phytomedicines in pregnancy and paediatrics. In: Herbal drugs: ethnomedicine to modern medicine: Springer; 2009. p. 381–96.Google Scholar
  13. Bogusz MJ, Al Tufail M, Hassan H. How natural are ‘natural herbal remedies’? Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev. 2002;21(4):219–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Marcus DM, Snodgrass WR. Do no harm: avoidance of herbal medicines during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(5, Part 1):1119–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Nordeng H, Havnen GC. Impact of socio-demographic factors, knowledge and attitude on the use of herbal drugs in pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(1):26–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordeng H, Havnen GC. Use of herbal drugs in pregnancy: a survey among 400 Norwegian women. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(6):371–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy D, Lupattelli A, Koren G, Nordeng H. Safety classification of herbal medicines used in pregnancy in a multinational study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016;16(1):102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Ahmed M, Hwang JH, Choi S, Han D. Safety classification of herbal medicines used among pregnant women in Asian countries: a systematic review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17.Google Scholar
  19. Chuang C-H, Doyle P, Wang J-D, Chang P-J, Lai J-N, Chen P-C. Herbal medicines used during the first trimester and major congenital malformations. Drug Saf. 2006;29(6):537–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Cuzzolin L, Francini-Pesenti F, Verlato G, Joppi M, Baldelli P, Benoni G. Use of herbal products among 392 Italian pregnant women: focus on pregnancy outcome. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(11):1151–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Hazell L, Cornelius V, Hannaford P, Shakir S, Avery A. Yellow card study collaboration how do patients contribute to signal detection? A retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK’s yellow card scheme. Drug Saf. 2013;36(3):199–206.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta PC, Ray CS. Smokeless tobacco and health in India and South Asia. Respirology. 2003;8(4):419–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Salmasi G, Grady R, Jones J, McDonald SD. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(4):423–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Bachok NA, Salinah O. The effect of second-hand smoke exposure during pregnancy on the newborn weight in Malaysia. Malays J Med Sci. 2014;21(2):44.Google Scholar
  25. Abu-Baker NN, Haddad L, Savage C. The influence of secondhand smoke exposure on birth outcomes in Jordan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(2):616–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Pandey S, Murugan V, Karki YB, Mathur A. In-home smoking in households with women of reproductive age in Nepal: does Women's empowerment matter? Health Soc Work. 2017;42(1):32–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinibaldi J, Jäckle A, Tipping S, Lynn P. Interviewer characteristics, their doorstep behaviour, and survey co-operation. AAPOR. 2009:14–7.Google Scholar
  28. Al-Riyami IM, Al-Busaidy IQ, Al-Zakwani IS. Medication use during pregnancy in Omani women. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33(4):634–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Rahman AA, Sulaiman SA, Ahmad Z, Salleh H, Daud WNW, Hamid AM. Women’s attitude and sociodemographic characteristics influencing usage of herbal medicines during pregnancy in Tumpat District, Kelantan; 2009.Google Scholar
  30. Forster DA, Denning A, Wills G, Bolger M, McCarthy E. Herbal medicine use during pregnancy in a group of Australian women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2006;6(1):21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Mothupi MC. Use of herbal medicine during pregnancy among women with access to public healthcare in Nairobi, Kenya: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14(1):432.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Pallivalapila AR, Stewart D, Shetty A, Pande B, Singh R, McLay JS. Use of complementary and alternative medicines during the third trimester. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):204–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Mekuria AB, Erku DA, Gebresillassie BM, Birru EM, Tizazu B, Ahmedin A. Prevalence and associated factors of herbal medicine use among pregnant women on antenatal care follow-up at University of Gondar referral and teaching hospital, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17(1):86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Ernst E. Toxic heavy metals and undeclared drugs in Asian herbal medicines. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2002;23(3):136–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Holst L, Wright D, Haavik S, Nordeng H. The use and the user of herbal remedies during pregnancy. J Altern Complement Med. 2009;15(7):787–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomson M, Corbin R, Leung L. Effects of ginger for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy: a meta-analysis. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(1):115–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Gaur S. Medicinal and therapeutical potential of Nigella sativa. J Biomedical Pharmaceutical Res. 2015;4(1).Google Scholar
  38. Schmidt S. An OTC approach to managing cough. South African Pharmacist’s Assistant. 2017;17(1):9–12.Google Scholar
  39. Ahmed T, Sadia H, Batool S, Janjua A, Shuja F. Use of prunes as a control of hypertension. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2010;22(1):28–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Karasawa Y. The impact of betel quid chewing during pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes in Bhutan. Diss. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; 2017.Google Scholar
  41. Gruenwald J, Brendler T, Jaenicke C: PDR for herbal medicines: Thomson, Reuters; 2007.Google Scholar
  42. Ulbricht CE, Basch EM. Natural standard herb & supplement reference: evidence-based clinical reviews. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby; 2005.Google Scholar
  43. Ashwini R, Gajalakshmi S, Mythili S, Sathiavelu A. Terminalia chebula-a pharmacological review. J Pharm Res. 2011;4(9):2884–7.Google Scholar
  44. Fakeye TO, Adisa R, Musa IE. Attitude and use of herbal medicines among pregnant women in Nigeria. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2009;9(1):53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Bongiorno PB, Fratellone PM, LoGiudice P. Potential health benefits of garlic (Allium sativum): a narrative review. J Complement Integrative Med. 2008;5(1):1–26.Google Scholar
  46. Mard SA, Veisi A, Naseri MKG, Mikaili P. Spasmogenic activity of the seed of Terminalia chebula Retz in rat small intestine: in vivo and in vitro studies. Malaysian J Med Sci. 2011;18(3):18.Google Scholar
  47. Hall HR, Jolly K. Women's use of complementary and alternative medicines during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2014;30(5):499–505.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement