Author: Rodrigo Garcia-Cerde1, Pollyanna Fausta Pimentel de Medeiros2, Leonardo F Silva3, Juliana Y Valente4, Solange Andreoni2, Zila M Sanchez2, Leandro F M Rezende2
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup> Department of Preventive Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Address: Rua Botucatu, 740 - 4° Andar, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 04023-062, Brazil. rodrigo.jgc@gmail.com.
<sup>2</sup> Department of Preventive Medicine, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Address: Rua Botucatu, 740 - 4° Andar, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 04023-062, Brazil.
<sup>3</sup> Institute of Health and Society, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Address: Rua Silva Jardim 136, Santos, SP, CEP: 11015-020, Brazil.
<sup>4</sup> Department of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Address: Rua Borges Lagoa, 570 - 1º Andar, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 04038-000, Brazil.
Conference/Journal: BMC Public Health
Date published: 2023 Jun 15
Other:
Volume ID: 23 , Issue ID: 1 , Pages: 1153 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16083-y. , Word Count: 350
Background:
In 2006, Brazil implemented the National Policy on Integrative and Complementary Practices of the SUS. and in 2015, the Brazilian Ministry of Health issued a reinforcement to this policy to increase access to integrative and complementary health practices (ICHP). In this study, we described the prevalence of ICHP in Brazilian adults according to their sociodemographic characteristics, self-perceived health, and chronic diseases.
Methods:
This is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey including 64,194 participants from the 2019 Brazilian National Health Survey. Types of ICHP were categorized according to their purposes: health promotion (Tai chi/Lian gong/Qi gong, yoga, meditation, and integrative community therapy) or therapeutic practices (acupuncture, auricular acupressure, herbal treatment and phytotherapy, and homeopathy). Participants were classified as non-practitioners and practitioners, who in turn were grouped according to use of ICHP in the last 12 months: only used health promotion practices (HPP); only used therapeutic practices (TP); used both (HPTP). Multinomial logistic regressions were performed to estimate the associations of ICHP with sociodemographic characteristics, self-perceived health status, and chronic diseases.
Results:
Brazilian adults showed an ICHP use prevalence of 6.13% [95%CI = 5.75-6.54]. Compared to non-practitioners, women and middle-aged adults were more likely to use any ICHP. Afro-Brazilians were less likely to use both HPP and HPTP, whereas Indigenous people were more likely to use both HPP and TP. We found a positive gradient of association among participants with higher income and educational attainment and access to any ICHP. People from rural areas and those with negative self-perceived health were more likely to use TP. Participants with arthritis/rheumatism, chronic back problems, and depression were more likely to use any ICHP.
Conclusions:
We found that 6% of Brazilian adults reported using ICHP in the previous 12 months. Women, middle-aged individuals, chronic patients, people with depression, and wealthier Brazilians are more likely to use any type of ICHP. Of note, rather than suggesting to expand the offer of these practices in the Brazilian public health system, this study diagnosed Brazilians' behavior of seeking for complementary healthcare.
Keywords: Alternative health practices; Complementary therapies; Comprehensive medicine; Cross-sectional study; Integrative medicine; Nationally representative data.
PMID: 37316825 PMCID: PMC10268350 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16083-y