The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with chronic diseases at outpatient clinics
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with chronic diseases at outpatient clinics. Another aim was to identify demographic and socio-economic factors that are associated with CAM use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Face-to-face interviews of conveniently selected patients with chronic diseases were conducted in outpatient clinics of a general hospital. A validated data collection form was used to gather the information regarding pattern, perception, reasons, and perceived effect of CAM on the disease state. The other relevant information including demographics, diagnosis, indication, and treatment were collected from the patients' medical records. RESULTS Out of 321 patients interviewed in this study, 205 patients were using some form of CAM, and thus the utilisation rate was 63.9%. A significant number of patients (35.5%) were using CAM for diabetes mellitus. Thirteen types of CAM were identified in the study with the most common being vitamins supplements (48.2%), herbal medicines (26.4%), ginseng (4.7%) and traditional Chinese medicine (4.0%). The patients with higher education level, higher income, and aged more than 50 years were independently associated with CAM use. Majority of the patients (77.6%) reported that their condition had improved by using CAM. CONCLUSION The present study confirms the high frequency of CAM use among patients with chronic diseases in a Malaysian public hospital. The popularity of CAM indicated the patients' preference towards holistic approach to health care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Unconventional medicine in the United States-Prevalence, costs, and patterns of use
Eisenberg, D. M., Kessler, R. C., Foster, C., Norlock, F. E., Calkins, D. R., & Delbanco, T. L. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199301283280406 · Cited by 4,177
Why Patients Use Alternative Medicine: Results of a National Study
Astin, J. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.19.1548 · Cited by 2,865
Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia
MacLennan, A. H., Wilson, D. H., & Taylor, A. W. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)91271-4 · Cited by 946
Fish oil and glycemic control in diabetes. A meta-analysis.
Friedberg, C. E., Janssen, M. J. F. M., Heine, R. J., & Grobbee, D. E. (1998) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.21.4.494 · Cited by 303
Cited by
Hamdan, N. K. A., Lean, Q. Y., Neoh, C. F., Abdullah, A. H., Lim, S. M., Ramasamy, K., Al-Worafi, Y. M., Goh, K. W., Goh, H. P., Ming, L. C., et al. (2020) · Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1155/2020/5713134 · Cited by 303
Ebrahimzadeh, A., Ebrahimzadeh, A., Mirghazanfari, S. M., Hazrati, E., Hadi, S., & Milajerdi, A. (2022) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102802 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Hasan, S. S., Ahmed, S. I., Bukhari, N. I., & Loon, W. C. W.
- Venue
- Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 152-157
- ISSN
- 1744-3881 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967465762
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with chronic diseases at outpatient clinics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ctcp.2009.02.003
- The paper
- Hasan, S. S., Ahmed, S. I., Bukhari, N. I., & Loon, W. C. W. (2009). Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with chronic diseases at outpatient clinics. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2009.02.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.