| Literature DB >> 28053899 |
Razak Mohammed Gyasi1, Williams Agyemang-Duah2, Charlotte Monica Mensah2, Francis Arthur2, Roselyn Torkornoo2, Padmore Adusei Amoah3.
Abstract
Research on unconventional medical practices among students has proliferated lately in the global space, hitherto, little is known explicitly in Ghana. This paper teases out insights for recent utilisation patterns of traditional medical therapies at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana. A sample of 754, randomly selected undergraduates were involved in a retrospective cross-sectional survey. Data were analysed using multivariate logistic regression and Pearson's χ2 test with p < 0.05 as significant. Overall prevalence of traditional therapies consumption was 89.1% in the last 12 months. Herbal-based products (67%), prayer healing (15%) and body-mind therapies (11%) were principally used and, accessed through purchases from pharmacy shops (29%) and encounter with faith healers (26%). Although students' knowledge on traditional therapies was acquired through family members (50%) and media (23%), literary materials remained significant information routes for Science related students compared to the Non-science related counterparts (p < 0.001). Pursuing Non-science-related programme [odds ratio (OR) 6.154 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.745-10.111; p < 0.001)] and having Christian faith [OR 2.450 (95% CI 1.359-4.415; p = 0.003)] were strongly associated with students' traditional therapies use. Although students exhibited positive attitude towards unconventional therapies, there is an urgent need to validate the quality of traditional therapies through randomised clinical trials and regulatory practices to ensure quality control. Health forces should intensify efforts towards intercultural health care system in Ghana.Entities:
Keywords: Intercultural healthcare; Kumasi; Prayer healing; Regulatory practices; Traditional medical therapies; University students
Year: 2016 PMID: 28053899 PMCID: PMC5198819 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcme.2016.06.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Tradit Complement Med ISSN: 2225-4110
Background characteristics by gender of the study participants.
| Gender | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Total | ||
| n (%) | n (%) | N (%) | ||
| Age | <20 | 35 (7.3) | 20 (7.2) | 55 (7.3) |
| 20–25 | 381 (79.7) | 236 (85.5) | 617 (81.8) | |
| 26–31 | 37 (7.7) | 14 (5.1) | 51 (6.8) | |
| 32–37 | 25 (5.2) | 6 (2.2) | 31 (4.1) | |
| Marital status | Single | 464 (97.1) | 268 (97.1) | 732 (97.1) |
| Married/Co-habited | 14 (2.9) | 8 (2.9) | 22 (2.9) | |
| Monthly pocket money | <Ghc100 | 197 (41.2) | 63 (22.8) | 260 (34.5) |
| Ghc100–200 | 182 (38.1) | 118 (42.8) | 300 (39.8) | |
| Ghc201–300 | 99 (20.7) | 95 (34.4) | 194 (25.7) | |
| Level of student | 100 | 179 (37.4) | 115 (41.7) | 294 (39.0) |
| 200 | 75 (15.7) | 19 (6.9) | 94 (12.5) | |
| 300 | 184 (38.5) | 104 (37.7) | 288 (38.2) | |
| 400 | 40 (8.4) | 38 (13.8) | 78 (10.3) | |
| Religious background | African traditional religion | 37 (7.7) | 27 (9.8) | 64 (8.5) |
| Christianity | 399 (83.5) | 229 (83.0) | 628 (83.3) | |
| Islamic religion | 30 (6.3) | 20 (7.2) | 50 (6.6) | |
| Other religions | 12 (2.5) | 0 (.0) | 12 (1.6) | |
Use of TRM by income level.
| Monthly pocket money | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <GHC100 | GHC100–200 | GHC201–300 | Total | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | N (%) | |||
| Status of TRM (Past 12 months) | Yes | 220 (84.6) | 278 (92.7) | 173 (89.2) | 671 (89.0) | <0.001 |
| No | 40 (15.4) | 22 (7.3) | 21 (10.8) | 83 (11.0) | ||
| Sources of TRM | Self-application | 54 (24.5) | 42 (15.1) | 37 (21.4) | 133 (19.8) | <0.001 |
| Consult faith healer | 35 (15.9) | 86 (30.9) | 56 (32.4) | 177 (26.4) | ||
| Self appliance | 41 (18.6) | 62 (22.3) | 16 (9.2) | 119 (17.7) | ||
| Pharmacy shops | 62 (28.2) | 81 (29.1) | 53 (30.6) | 196 (29.2) | ||
| Open market | 28 (12.7) | 7 (2.5) | 11 (6.4) | 46 (6.9) | ||
| Reason(s) for using TRM | Prevention of illness | 38 (17.3) | 34 (12.2) | 16 (9.2) | 88 (13.1) | <0.001 |
| Treating of illness | 111 (50.5) | 135 (48.6) | 95 (54.9) | 341 (50.8) | ||
| Improvement of health | 57 (25.9) | 21 (7.6) | 37 (21.4) | 115 (17.1) | ||
| To maintain health | 4 (1.8) | 84 (30.2) | 25 (14.5) | 113 (16.8) | ||
| Other | 10 (4.5) | 4 (1.4) | 0 (.0) | 14 (2.1) | ||
| Information sources about TRM | Family member | 120 (54.5) | 148 (53.2) | 70 (40.5) | 338 (50.4) | <0.001 |
| Friend | 11 (5.0) | 23 (8.3) | 18 (10.4) | 52 (7.7) | ||
| Literature | 25 (11.4) | 25 (9.0) | 0 (.0) | 50 (7.5) | ||
| Mass media | 26 (11.8) | 66 (23.7) | 53 (30.6) | 145 (21.6) | ||
| Health care provider | 38 (17.3) | 16 (5.8) | 32 (18.5) | 86 (12.8) | ||
| Frequency of TRM use | Daily | 17 (7.7) | 32 (11.5) | 7 (4.0) | 56 (8.3) | <0.001 |
| Weekly | 15 (6.8) | 68 (24.5) | 25 (14.5) | 108 (16.1) | ||
| Monthly | 72 (32.7) | 32 (11.5) | 37 (21.4) | 141 (21.0) | ||
| Annually | 59 (26.8) | 67 (24.1) | 15 (8.7) | 141 (21.0) | ||
| Occasionally | 57 (25.9) | 79 (28.4) | 89 (51.4) | 225 (33.5) | ||
| Times of TRM in the last 4 sicknesses | Not at all | 49 (22.3) | 82 (29.5) | 69 (39.9) | 200 (29.8) | <0.001 |
| Once | 26 (11.8) | 37 (13.3) | 35 (20.2) | 98 (14.6) | ||
| Two times | 114 (51.8) | 80 (28.8) | 15 (8.7) | 209 (31.1) | ||
| Three times | 11 (5.0) | 55 (19.8) | 38 (22.0) | 104 (15.5) | ||
| Four times | 20 (9.1) | 24 (8.6) | 16 (9.2) | 60 (8.9) | ||
Fig. 1Forms of unconventional medicines accessed by students.
Fig. 2Knowledge and awareness of unconventional medicines by programme of study.
Students' attitudes towards TRM.
| Level of student | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 200 | 300 | 400 | Total | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | N (%) | |||
| Rate of effectiveness of TRM | Poor | 18 (6.4) | 22 (30.6) | 4 (1.6) | 7 (10.8) | 51 (7.6) | <0.001 |
| Satisfactory | 48 (17.1) | 7 (9.7) | 47 (18.5) | 24 (36.9) | 126 (18.8) | ||
| Good | 72 (25.7) | 24 (33.3) | 86 (33.9) | 31 (47.7) | 213 (31.7) | ||
| Very good | 142 (50.7) | 19 (26.4) | 117 (46.1) | 3 (4.6) | 281 (41.9) | ||
| Rate of safety of use of TRM | Poor | 36 (12.9) | 18 (25.0) | 20 (7.9) | 15 (23.1) | 89 (13.3) | <0.001 |
| Satisfactory | 46 (16.4) | 15 (20.8) | 109 (42.9) | 34 (52.3) | 204 (30.4) | ||
| Good | 170 (60.7) | 24 (33.3) | 78 (30.7) | 10 (15.4) | 282 (42.0) | ||
| Very good | 28 (10.0) | 15 (20.8) | 47 (18.5) | 6 (9.2) | 96 (14.3) | ||
| Rate of flexibility of TRM | Poor | 27 (9.6) | 18 (25.0) | 16 (6.3) | 7 (10.8) | 68 (10.1) | <0.001 |
| Satisfactory | 60 (21.4) | 23 (31.9) | 110 (43.3) | 19 (29.2) | 21 (31.6) | ||
| Good | 147 (52.5) | 27 (37.5) | 109 (42.9) | 29 (44.6) | 312 (46.5) | ||
| Very good | 46 (16.4) | 4 (5.6) | 19 (7.5) | 10 (15.4) | 79 (11.8) | ||
| Co-use of TRM and OM | Yes | 86 (30.7) | 21 (29.2) | 71 (28.0) | 24 (36.9) | 202 (30.1) | 0.557 |
| No | 194 (69.3) | 51 (70.8) | 183 (72.0) | 41 (63.1) | 469 (69.9) | ||
| Side effects of TRM use | Yes | 20 (7.1) | 4 (5.6) | 46 (18.1) | 14 (21.5) | 84 (12.5) | <0.001 |
| No | 260 (92.9) | 68 (94.4) | 208 (81.9) | 51 (78.5) | 587 (87.5) | ||
Socio-economic factors associated with unconventional medicines use among students in multivariate analysis.
| Variables | β | OR (95.0% C.I) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less or equal to Level 200 | 0.363 | 1.00 | 0.175 |
| More than Level 200 | 1.438 (0.850–2.432) | ||
| Others religious groups | 0.896 | 1.00 | 0.003∗ |
| Being a Christian | 2.450 (1.359–4.415) | ||
| Science | 1.817 | 1.00 | <0.001∗ |
| Non-science | 6.154 (3.745–10.111) | ||
OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval;∗ = statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05. 1.00 = Reference group.