| Title |
Complementary and alternative medicine use amongst patients with cardiovascular disease in Singapore
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-016-1430-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tse Yean Teo, Jonathan Yap, Tong Shen, Khung Keong Yeo |
| Abstract |
Data on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) are lacking. We aim to investigate the prevalence of CAM use among patients with CVD attending a tertiary centre for cardiovascular care, their attitudes and beliefs towards CAM, and factors associated with CAM usage. A cross-sectional, self-administered written survey was conducted on consecutive patients attending outpatient cardiovascular clinics at our tertiary institution over 2 months from June to July 2014. Information gathered included demographic data and various aspects of CAM use. A total of 768 responses (562 males, mean age 57 ± 13 years, 74 % Chinese, 6 % Malay, 14 % Indian) were included. The prevalence of CAM use in the cohort was 43.4 % (333/768). Biologically-based systems (29.4 %) was the most common type of CAM used. Some patients (19.0 %) used multiple types of CAM simultaneously. External influences (78.1 %) were cited more than internal influences (47.8 %) to affect CAM use. Malay ethnicity (compared to Chinese) was the only significant negative multivariate predictor of CAM use (OR = 0.531 (95 % CI 0.147 to 0.838), p = 0.018). A significantly higher proportion of CAM users compared to non-CAM users were non-compliant to medications (35.6 %, n = 114 vs. 20.5 %, n = 84, p < 0.001) and consults (41.4 %, n = 130 vs. 28.1 %, n = 112, p < 0.001) respectively. The usage of CAM is prevalent amongst our patients with CVD. CAM use was associated with poorer reported compliance to medications and consults. Understanding the factors influencing CAM use amongst CVD patients provides medical professionals with an opportunity to better discuss CAM use and potentially enhance the patient-physician interaction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,482,034
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,517
of 3,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,900
of 312,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#34
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.