BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies (Jul 2020)

A hospital-based study on complementary and alternative medicine use among diabetes patients in Rajshahi, Bangladesh

  • Md. Abdur Rafi,
  • Dewan Tasnia Azad,
  • Mridula Bhattacharjee,
  • Nikita Rahman,
  • Kazi Abdul Mubin,
  • Md. Ajijur Rahman,
  • Md. Golam Hossain

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-020-03021-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients is increasing worldwide. It can affect optimum glycemic management. This study was to determine the rate and influencing factors of CAM use among diabetes patients as well as their effect on glycemic control. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted among T2DM patients attending the outpatient department of Rajshahi Medical College Hospital. It is a tertiary hospital in the northern part of Bangladesh. A face-to-face interview with a pretested structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Chi-square (χ2) test and multivariate logistic regression model were used in this study for data analysis. Results Out of 244 T2DM patients, 86 (35.2%) used CAM. Multivariate logistic regression model showed that lower family income group (AOR = 8.7, 95% CI: 2.15–35.22, p-value 0.002), having no institutional education (AOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 1.17–9.87, p-value 0.025) and having diabetes for more than five years (AOR = 2.821, 95% CI: 1.34–5.94, p-value 0.006) were the most influential predictors of CAM use. The most commonly used CAMs were herbal products (67.4%) and homeopathic medicine (37.2%). Most of the CAM users (72%) were influenced by friends, neighbors, and family members. The most common reasons behind CAM use were reported to be the belief that CAM helped control diabetes better (44.2%) and easy availability and lower cost (27.9%). More than half of the users reported the efficacy of CAM as ‘nothing significant’, while others reported as somewhat good. 14% of CAM users experienced side-effects, especially gastrointestinal upset. It was observed that using CAM was associated with poor glycemic control (AOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.14–4.44, p-value 0.018). Conclusion Our study demonstrated that some modifiable factors are associated with the use of CAM, and it cannot maintain good glycemic control. So, patients should be made aware of the ineffectiveness and bad effects of CAM by enhancing educational and poverty-alleviating programs.

Keywords