↓ Skip to main content

Use of complementary and alternative medicine in pregnancy: a cross-sectional survey on Iraqi women

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Use of complementary and alternative medicine in pregnancy: a cross-sectional survey on Iraqi women
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1167-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jung Hye Hwang, Yu-Rim Kim, Mansoor Ahmed, Soojeung Choi, Nihad Qasim Al-Hammadi, Nameer Muhammad Widad, Dongwoon Han

Abstract

Due to the lack of strong evidence on safety and efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches, the use of CAM in women during pregnancy could be hazardous for mother and fetus. Meanwhile, little is known regarding the patterns, the reasons and the factors affecting use of CAM among pregnant women in Iraq. A cross sectional survey design was used to carry out face-to-face interviews with 335 consecutive pregnant women. The questionnaire comprised of three sections: socio-demographic characteristics, pregnancy-related aspects and the patterns and attitudes towards use of CAM. Determinants of CAM use were assessed through the logistic regression analysis. Three hundred thirty-five pregnant women completed the questionnaire. 56.7 % reported using at least one form of CAM modalities. In total, 24 different types of CAM were used; with herbal medicine (53.7 %) and multivitamins (36.3 %) the most commonly used modalities. From the logistic regression analysis, the variables positively associated with CAM use were: rural residence (odds ratio (OR) 2.0, p < 0.01), no occupation (OR 2.7, p < 0.05), high income (OR 2.0, p < 0.05), perceived healthy status (OR 2.6, p < 0.05) and ever use of contraception (OR 2.0, p < 0.01). Only 0.5 % of CAM users disclosed their CAM use to physicians. The proportion of CAM users among pregnant women is relatively high and it is important to learn what types of CAM they use. However, disclosure of CAM use was extraordinarily low. Given the low rate of disclosure, it should be ensured that physicians establish good level of communication with pregnant women and have adequate knowledge of CAM.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Researcher 11 10%
Lecturer 7 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 38 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 36 33%
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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,518
of 3,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,100
of 355,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#65
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 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 3,637 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 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 355,364 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 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.