↓ Skip to main content

Use of Non-Prescription Remedies by Ghanaian Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Persons on Antiretroviral Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of Non-Prescription Remedies by Ghanaian Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Persons on Antiretroviral Therapy
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amos K. Laar, Awewura Kwara, Priscillia A. Nortey, Augustine K. Ankomah, Michael P. K. Okyerefo, Margaret Y. Lartey

Abstract

Inappropriate use of non-prescription remedies by persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) may result in adverse events or potentiate non-adherence to prescribed medications. This study investigated the use of non-prescription remedies among PLHIV receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from four treatment centers in southern Ghana. A mixed method design using quantitative and qualitative methods was used. This article focuses on the quantitative survey of 540 respondents. Univariate analysis was used to generate descriptive tabulations of key variables. Bivariate analysis and logistic regression modeling, respectively, produced unadjusted and adjusted associations between background attributes of PLHIV and the use of non-prescription remedies. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. One out of three respondents reported the use of non-prescription remedies at least once within 3 months of the survey. Most of these were locally made and included "Angel natural bitters, concoctions from the Christian prayer centers, garlic, and mahogany syrups." These remedies were used concomitantly with antiretroviral medications (ARVs)-46% or administered with ARVs but at different times during the day (43%). Some of the remedies were reportedly prescribed by health workers, or self-initiated during periods of ARVs shortage. Others took them based on their perception of their efficacy. Bivariate level analysis identified ART clinic site, place of residence, and ARV adherence monitoring to be significantly associated with the use of non-prescription remedies (p < 0.05). Multiple logistic regression analysis controlling for covariates confirmed the location of ART clinic as the only predictor of the use of non-prescription remedies. Compared to clients at the large urban teaching hospital (Korle-Bu Fevers Unit ART center), those at the district level (Atua ART center) were ninefold more likely to use non-prescription remedies [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 8.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.83-33.72]. Those from a district level mission hospital (St. Martin's ART center) were threefold as likely to use these remedies (AOR = 2.610; 95% CI 1.074-9.120). The use of non-prescription remedies by PLHIV on ART is common in southern Ghana. Usage is mostly self-initiated because of perceived efficacy of remedy, and was more common among clients attending rural ART clinics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Researcher 5 9%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,464,271
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#932
of 10,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,446
of 313,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#8
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.