4.3 Article

Access to herbal medicines in Brazil: a cross-sectional study

期刊

JOURNAL OF HERBAL MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.hermed.2023.100736

关键词

Access to medicines; Phytotherapy; Pharmaceutical policy; Health policy; Medicinal Plants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the use of herbal medicines in the Brazilian population and found that gender, race, healthcare sector, and health conditions have an impact on the use of herbal medicines. To reduce inequalities in the use of herbal medicines, there is a need for health education, professional training, and adjustment of public policies.
Introduction: Medicines are essential therapeutic strategies for health systems, thus, it is essential to verify whether the use of herbal medicines is equally distributed among the Brazilian population.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with the Brazilian population. Those over 18 years of age, residing in the country for at least 12 months and with regular access to the internet, were included. The information showed the profile of the individuals, health conditions and characteristics of phytotherapy use. Data were submitted to Binary Logistic Regression (P < 0.05). The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pernambuco (4880,872).Results: Among 1 421 individuals, 727 (51.2%) used herbal medicines. The chance of this use was higher among those who did not identify as female (OR adjusted = 1.4/95% CI = 1.0-1.9; P = 0.028); white (OR adjusted = 1.4/95% CI = 1.0-1.8; P = 0.019); exclusive user of the private care sector (OR adjusted = 1.8/ 95% CI = 1.1-2.8; P = 0.009); with health problems (OR adjusted = 1.4/95% CI = 1.0-1.9; P = 0.010); and with product prescription (OR adjusted = 7.3/95% CI = 5.4-9.9; P < 0.001).Discussion/Conclusions: There must be professional training, health education for users and readjustment of public policies to reduce inequalities in the use of herbal medicines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据