国际标准期刊号: 2161-1165

Epidemiology: Open Access

开放获取

我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 夏尔巴·罗密欧
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 安全点亮
  • 访问全球在线农业研究 (AGORA)
  • 国际农业与生物科学中心 (CABI)
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • OCLC-世界猫
  • CABI 全文
  • 出租车直达
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

Patterns of Variation in Botanical Supplement Use among Hispanics and Latinos in the United States

Keturah R. Faurot, Amanda C. Filipelli, Charles Poole, Paula M. Gardiner

Background: The prevalence of botanical supplement use among Hispanics/Latinos in the United States varies widely, thwarting efforts to understand patterns of use in these rapidly growing populations. In this systematic review of the literature, we present an analysis of patterns of botanical supplement use across available studies including Hispanics/Latinos in the United States, 1998-2011.

Methods: Search strategies included CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, CAB Abstracts, AMED and Medline resulting in 33 studies reporting botanical supplement prevalence among Hispanic/Latino adults, limiting studies to those with similar outcomes and Hispanic/Latino sample ≥1%.

Results: Median prevalence of botanical supplement use among Hispanics/Latinos varied from 12% for ≤30 days of use to 27% for 6-12 months of use and 45% for 2+ years of use. Variation in prevalence of botanical use among Hispanics/Latinos was largely dependent on study design factors, particularly sampling strategy and target population. Patterns associated with higher median prevalence included regional (42%, 95% CI: 35, 57%) vs. national (15%; 8, 22%) samples, convenience (45%; 35, 63%) vs. probability sampling (21%; 10, 42%), and majority Hispanic/Latino (45%; 32, 67%) vs. majority non-Hispanic/ Latino (21%; 15, 42%) samples. Studies targeting Hispanic/Latino populations with botanical assessments specific to these populations resulted in higher prevalence estimates (49% vs. 18%). The most common botanicals reported by Hispanics/ Latinos across studies were chamomile, aloe, and garlic.

Conclusions: Although studies with probability sampling are less affected by selection bias, most target the general US population and exclude botanical supplements common among Hispanic/Latino populations. Improved estimates of botanical supplement use among Hispanics/Latinos require culturally-relevant assessment instruments and strategies. Assessments of botanical supplement use in other ethnic populations, e.g., among immigrants from Asian countries, are also likely to suffer from information bias.