<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
      <JournalTitle>Journal of Asian Association of Schools of Pharmacy</JournalTitle>
      <Volume-Issue>Volume 1 No.1</Volume-Issue>
      <Season>January - March, 2012</Season>
      <ArticleTitle>Prevalence, perceptions and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine use in selected communities in the Philippines</ArticleTitle>
          <FirstName>Vina R.A.</FirstName>
          <FirstName>Roderick L.</FirstName>
      <Abstract>The study examines the use of complementary and alternative medicine among residents of selected rural and urban communities in the Philippines using the CAM Healthcare Model. Interviews were conducted on 146 respondents in Batangas, Caloocan and Para?aque using a structured questionnaire that applies the RAND Short Form (SF) 36 and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire as measures of self-perceived health status. A higher prevalence was observed among the rural respondents (68.4%) as compared with their urban counterparts (51.5%). Users in both rural and urban areas perceived CAM as beneficial. Significant predictors of use included the type of community, an annual income of less than USD 10,500, more than 10 years of residence in the community, self-perceived health status in the Energy/Fatigue, Emotional Well-being and Pain scales in the SF 36, presence of chronic illness, and consultations to traditional faith healer for health issues. Since only about 27% of the variability in the odds of using CAM can be explained by the model, further studies investigating other predictors of use are recommended.</Abstract>
      <Keywords>complementary medicine alternative medicine rural community urban community</Keywords>
        <Abstract>https://aaspjournal.org/ubijournal-v1copy/journals/abstract.php?article_id=5910&amp;title=Prevalence, perceptions and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine use in selected communities in the Philippines</Abstract>
        <References>1. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. Results of a follow-up national survey. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:1569-1570.&#13;
2. MacLennan AH, Myers S, Taylor AW. The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004. Med J Australia. 2006;184(1):27-31.&#13;
3. World Health Organization. Fact sheet no. 271. Geneva: WHO; 2002.&#13;
4. Nunes B, Esteves MJS. Therapeutic itineraries in rural and urban areas: a Portuguese study. Rural and Remote Health 6 (online) 2006;394;2- 5. Available from: http://rrh.deakin. edu.au. Accessed July 8, 2009.&#13;
5. Moga MM, Mowery B, Geib R. Patients are more likely to use complementary medicine if it is locally available. Rural and Remote Health 8 (online) 2008:1028. Available from: http://www.rrh. org.au. Accessed July 8, 2009.&#13;
6. Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;279:1548-1553.&#13;
7. Adams J, Sibbritt D, Lui C. The urban-rural divide in complementary and alternative medicine use: a longitudinal study of 10,638 women. BMC Complem Altern M. 2011;11(2):1-2.&#13;
8. Cuellar N, Aycock T, Cahill B, Ford J. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by African American (AA) and Caucasian American (CA) older adults in a rural setting: a descriptive, comparative study. BMC Complem Altern M. 2003;3(8):5-6.&#13;
9. Cuellar N, Butts JB. Caregiver distress: what nurses in rural settings can do to help. Nursing Forum 1999;34:24-30.&#13;
10.Foulad-bakhsh J, Stommel M. Comparative analysis of CAM use in the U.S. cancer and noncancer populations. J Complementary Integrative Medicine. 2008; 5(1):19- 20.&#13;
11. Palinkas LA, Kabongo ML. The use of complementary and alternative medicine by primary care patients. A SURFNET study. J Fam Practice. 2000, 49:1121-1130.&#13;
12. Hildreth K, Elman C. Alternative worldviews and the utilization of conventional and complementary medicine. Sociol Inq. 2007;77(1): 76-103.</References>