↓ Skip to main content

A critical review of traditional medicine and traditional healer use for malaria and among people in malaria-endemic areas: contemporary research in low to middle-income Asia-Pacific countries

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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 critical review of traditional medicine and traditional healer use for malaria and among people in malaria-endemic areas: contemporary research in low to middle-income Asia-Pacific countries
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0593-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dwi L Suswardany, David W Sibbritt, Sudibyo Supardi, Sungwon Chang, Jon Adams

Abstract

Malaria is a leading health threat for low to middle-income countries and around 1.8 billion people in the Southeast Asian region and 870 million people in the Western Pacific region remain at risk of contracting malaria. Traditional medicine/traditional healer (TM/TH) use is prominent amongst populations in low- to middle-income countries and constitutes an important issue influencing and potentially challenging effective, safe and coordinated prevention and treatment strategies around malaria. This paper presents the first critical review of literature on the use of TM/TH for malaria prevention and treatment in low- to middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region. A comprehensive search of English language, peer-reviewed literature reporting TM and/or TH use for malaria or among people in malaria-endemic areas in low- to middle-income Asia-Pacific countries published between 2003 and 2014 was undertaken. Twenty-eight papers reporting 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of TM/TH use for malaria treatment ranged from 1 to 40.1%. A majority of studies conducted in rural/remote areas reported higher prevalence of TM/TH use than those conducted in mixed areas of urban, semi-urban, rural, and remote areas. Those utilizing TM/TH for malaria are more likely to be: women, people with lower educational attainment, people with lower household income, those with farming occupations, and those from ethnic minorities (identified from only three studies). The majority of adult participants delayed seeking treatment from a health centre or conventional providers while initially practicing TH use. The most common reasons for TM/TH use for malaria across the Asia-Pacific region are a lack of accessibility to conventional health services (due to geographical and financial barriers), faith in traditional treatment, and the perception of lower severity of malaria symptoms. This review has provided crucial insights into the prevalence and profile of TM/TH use for malaria. Those managing and providing conventional programmes, treatment and care for malaria in the Asia-Pacific should remain mindful of the possible use of TM/TH amongst community members and patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 13 9%
Lecturer 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 40 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 46 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,417,146
of 25,746,891 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,692
of 5,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,906
of 271,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#46
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,746,891 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 271,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 58% of its contemporaries.