↓ Skip to main content

A longitudinal analysis of self-prescribed complementary and alternative medicine use by a nationally representative sample of 19,783 Australian women, 2006–2010

Overview of attention for article published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A longitudinal analysis of self-prescribed complementary and alternative medicine use by a nationally representative sample of 19,783 Australian women, 2006–2010
Published in
Complementary Therapies in Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ctim.2015.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Bowe, Jon Adams, Chi-Wai Lui, David Sibbritt

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is increasingly popular amongst general populations around the world with women constituting substantial CAM users. However, self-prescribed CAM use does raise potential safety concerns and so it is important to identify those risk factors associated with self-prescribed CAM use. Data was obtained from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). Longitudinal data analyses were conducted on questionnaire data from the 1973-78 cohort (n=9,145) and the 1946-51 cohort (n=10,638), collected over the period 2006-2010. In the 1973-78 cohort, use of self-prescribed CAM was 73.2% in 2006 and 75.3% in 2009. For the 1946-51 cohort, use of self-prescribed CAM was 73.9% in 2007 and 74.7% in 2010. There were similar levels of use of individual self-prescribed CAM, with the exception that the use of herbal medicine was much higher among the 1946-51 cohort (20% vs. 27%). There was a substantial increase over three years in the use of vitamins/minerals in both cohorts (21% and 19%, respectively). In contrast, there was a considerable decline over three years in use of aromatherapy oils in both cohorts (34% and 28%, respectively). Self-prescribed CAM use is popular amongst women in Australia and it is important that conventional practitioners providing women's health care be cognizant of such use amongst their patients. In order to ensure effective practice, there is a need for further research to explore women's decision-making and experiences around self-prescribed CAM use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Complementary Therapies in Medicine
#1,229
of 1,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,143
of 277,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Complementary Therapies in Medicine
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 277,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.