4.3 Article

Herbal use among US elderly: 2002 National Health Interview Survey

期刊

ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 643-648

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1E460

关键词

elderly; herbals; incidence; interactions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Use of herbal products among the elderly is an important concern for healthcare professionals. The presence of polypharmacy and multiple comorbidities places the elderly at high risk for herb-drug and herb-disease interactions. Limited data exist regarding herbal use among the US elderly population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of and attitudes toward herbal use in a nationally representative sample of US elderly patients >= 65 years of age. METHODS: We performed a descriptive analysis of public domain data collected in the 2002 National Health Interview Survey. Statistical analyses were conducted through use of SUDAAN software with Taylor series linearization for variance estimation. RESULTS: Analysis of weighted data revealed that 12.9% +/- 0.5% (mean +/- SE) of US elderly people had used an herbal supplement within the past 12 months. Use was greatest among individuals 65-69 years of age, females, Hispanic and non-Hispanic ethnic minorities, and respondents with a greater income, higher education level, or more positive self-reported health status. Among elderly people purchasing over-the-counter and prescription drugs, herbal use was 13.9% +/- 0.6% and 12.8% +/- 0.6%, respectively. Glucosamine, echinacea, and garlic supplements represented the most common herbals used. Benefit from combined herbal and conventional therapy was the most common reason cited for use; however, 50.9% +/- 2.2% of users did not discuss herbal therapy with a medical professional. Several theoretical herb-disease interactions were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The use of herbal products among the US elderly has risen over the past 5 years, whereas discussion of such use with medical professionals remains suboptimal.

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