4.7 Article

Use of dietary supplements and natural remedies increased dramatically during the 1990s

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 250, Issue 2, Pages 160-166

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00872.x

Keywords

cross-sectional studies; dietary supplements; herbal medicine; prevalence; trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To estimate the prevalence and trends in dietary supplement and natural remedy use in Sweden during the 1980s and 1990s. Design. Three nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys conducted in 1980-81. 1988-89 and 1996-97 were used for analysis. In face-to-face interviews participants reported consumption of dietary supplements and natural remedies during the previous 2 weeks. Setting. Sweden. Subjects. The samples consisted totally of 38 594 adults aged 16-84 years (14 642 in the 1980-81 survey, 12 391 in the 1988-89 survey and 11 561 in the 1996-97 survey). Main outcome measures. Changes in prevalence of dietary supplement and natural remedy users between 1980 and 1997. Results. The 70% increase in the prevalence of dietary supplement users amongst both men and women (odds ratio (OR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI). 1.6-1.9. OR. 1.7: 95% CI, 1.5-1.8. respectively] occurred mainly between 1988-89 and 1996-97. The increase in the prevalence of natural remedy users was even more dramatic more than threefold in men (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.9-4.0) and almost threefold in women (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9) - and the systematic increase started already in the 1980s. The increase was observed in all age groups and in all socio-economic groups, except for farmers. In 1996-97 the prevalence of dietary supplement users was 22% amongst men and 33% amongst women, and of natural remedies 7 and 14%, respectively. Conclusions. During the last two decades, the use of dietary supplements and natural remedies amongst the adult Swedish population has dramatically increased.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available