↓ Skip to main content

The use of complementary and alternative medicine by 7427 Australian women with cyclic perimenstrual pain and discomfort: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
Title
The use of complementary and alternative medicine by 7427 Australian women with cyclic perimenstrual pain and discomfort: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1119-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole Fisher, Jon Adams, Louise Hickman, David Sibbritt

Abstract

To assess the prevalence of cyclic perimenstrual pain and discomfort and to detail the pattern of complementary and alternative (CAM) use adopted by women for the treatment of these symptoms. Data from the 2012 national Australian Longitudinal Study of Women's Health (ALSWH) cross-sectional survey of 7427 women aged 34-39 years were analysed to estimate the prevalence of endometriosis, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), irregular or heavy periods and severe dysmenorrhoea and to examine the association between their symptoms and their visits to CAM practitioners as well as their use of CAM therapies and products in the previous 12 months. The prevalence of endometriosis was 3.7 % and of the perimenstrual symptoms assessed, PMS was most prevalent at 41.2 % whilst irregular bleeding (22.2 %), heavy periods (29.8 %) and severe period pain (24.1 %) were reported at lower levels. Women with endometriosis were more likely than non-sufferers to have consulted with a massage therapist or acupuncturist and to have used vitamins/minerals, yoga/meditation or Chinese medicines (p < 0.05). PMS sufferers were more likely to consult with an osteopath, massage therapist, naturopath/herbalist or alternative health practitioner and to have used all forms of CAM therapies except Chinese medicines than women who had infrequent PMS (all p < 0.05). Women with irregular periods did not have different patterns of CAM use from non-sufferers and those with heavy periods did not favour any form of CAM but were less likely to visit a massage therapist or use yoga/meditation than non-sufferers (p < 0.05). For women with severe dysmenorrhoea there was no difference in their visits to CAM practitioners compared to non-sufferers but they were more likely to use aromatherapy oils (p < 0.05) and for more frequent dysmenorrhoea also herbal medicines, Chinese medicines and other alternative therapies compared to non-sufferers (all p < 0.05). There is a high prevalence of cyclic perimenstrual pain and discomfort amongst women in this age group. Women were using CAM differentially when they had specific symptoms of cyclic perimenstrual pain and discomfort. The use of CAM needs to be properly assessed to ensure their safe, effective use and to ascertain their significance as a treatment option enabling women with menstrual problems and their care providers to improve their quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 245 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 18%
Student > Master 26 11%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 86 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 16%
Psychology 11 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 99 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,202,845
of 24,639,073 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#995
of 3,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,867
of 340,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#13
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,639,073 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 340,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.