| Title |
Changes in trust and the use of Korean medicine in South Korea: a comparison of surveys in 2011 and 2014
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-017-1969-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Soohyun Kwon, Shinhee Heo, Dongjun Kim, Seunghyun Kang, Jong-Min Woo |
| Abstract |
Korean medicine (KM) has been widely used in Korea. This study aimed to assess the general perceptions of KM, to investigate the patterns of its usage in 2014, and to compare the results with those of an earlier survey from 2011. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 1000 Korean people. The questionnaire included items regarding trust in KM, reasons for distrust of KM, and visit frequency to KM clinics. This study used methods consistent with those of a 2011 survey to examine changes in attitudes over 3 years. Despite high rates of trust in KM, the visit frequency decreased from 69.3% in 2011 to 63.2% in 2014. Usage among young adults (in their 20s and 30s) was significantly reduced compared to all other age groups. The KM modality most commonly used by participants was acupuncture, whereas the use of moxibustion and cupping therapies has decreased since 2011. Men and women were most likely to distrust KM due to a "lack of scientific evidence" (59.3%) and "suspicion of KM safety" (47.4%), respectively. The findings suggested that KM use and trust in KM were slightly lower in 2014 than in 2011. The decreases were most notable among individuals in their 30s and in the use of moxibustion in KM therapy. This study aimed to produce practical insights by reviewing patterns of KM use and perceptions over time. Additional surveys must be considered to produce a more in-depth analysis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 57% |
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 01 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,479,632
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,056
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,355
of 289,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#52
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 289,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.