Background
Every day large numbers of people use traditional, complementary and alternative medicines (TCAM) to support their health and wellbeing [
1‐
3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines
traditional medicine as the “sum total of the knowledge, skill and practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to different cultures, used in the maintenance of health as well as in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment” of illness; while
complementary or
alternative medicine encompasses a broad set of health care practices that are not considered within the conventional Western allopathic medical model [
4]. The extent to which these services and products are used is considerable, but varies widely from country to country. A systematic review covering mainly high- and upper-middle income countries found that 26% of the general population in the United Kingdom had used any form of TCAM in the previous year, but this rose to 76% in Japan [
1]. Except in Australia, TCAM use was higher in non-Western countries, [
1] reflecting differences in the cultural embeddedness of TCAM from context to context [
5].
The dominant forms of TCAM used also varies, particularly across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as shown by two systematic reviews conducted across Sub-Saharan Africa and ASEAN member states [
2,
3]. These found that herbs and supplements were the common modalities used in both regions [
2,
3]. Manipulative and body-based therapies, such as massage, were also common; as were mind–body methods, such as prayer and meditation; while the frequent use of alternative medical systems, including traditional Chinese medicine, and energy therapies like acupuncture, was noted only in Southeast Asia [
2,
3].
Both reviews also illustrate the broad range of health concerns for which these treatments were used. In Sub-Saharan Africa, TCAM was used for an especially wide array of conditions, including reproductive and sexual health concerns, communicable diseases, ophthalmic conditions, musculoskeletal pain and to mend broken bones [
2]. These are in addition to the applications found to be common across both regions, including for HIV/AIDS, mental health, neurological conditions, and a range of other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer, diabetes, asthma and hypertension [
2,
3].
The relationship between TCAM and conventional medicine also varies. An average of 55% of general populations across Sub-Saharan Africa use TCAM alongside conventional medicine [
2]. In Southeast Asia, detailed national findings from Malaysia found that 41% of users do so concurrently with conventional treatment, while 40% choose to seek treatment initially from TCAM providers before obtaining conventional care, while the remainder use TCAM only as an alternative to conventional treatment [
6].
By 2018, 150 of 170 World Health Organization (WHO) member states had formally recognised the use of TCAM in laws, regulations, or institutional structures; however, the degree and means of ensuring the safety and effectiveness of TCAM products and services, and of their integration with conventional medical care differs from country to country [
4]. Initiatives, such as the ‘Roadmap for an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Community (2009–2015)’, have sought to harmonise the production, regulation, marketing and integration of TCAM in the region, [
7] again reflecting the cultural significance that non-Western systems of medicine play in these countries [
5].
Alongside cultural factors, TCAM use in LMICs is also driven by access. In many of these settings, national health system weaknesses mean that TCAM services are more physically accessible and affordable than conventional healthcare options [
8,
9]. Consequently, those suffering from chronic and/or multiple conditions, from poorer households and more remote communities are all more likely to use TCAM products and services [
2,
3,
10‐
12]. These individuals are also some of the most likely to experience the devastating economic and social consequences of ill health [
13,
14]. Therefore, understanding the patterns and impacts of TCAM use for poor, chronically ill people in different LMIC contexts is important as these countries work toward reducing health and social inequalities in the push to achieve universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. To date, few such targeted data exist.
This paper explores the use of TCAM for the management of hypertension by people living in low-income communities in two Southeast Asian countries with different health systems and at different levels of economic development: the Philippines, a lower-middle income nation with a pluralistic health system where a recent study reported that 43% of adults aged 20 to 50 years had used it in the past 6 months; [
15] and Malaysia, a richer country with a more developed public healthcare system where 53%-56% of the population reported using TCAM in the previous year [
12,
16,
17]. Although the health systems in both countries are composed of a tax-funded public sector and a large private sector funded primarily via user fees at the point of service, these countries were selected in part to study the effect of key health system differences on the management of hypertension in our study population of low-income adults.
The Philippines is a large archipelago of more than 7000 islands, with a population greater than 100 million [
18]. While the nation’s economy is one of the fastest growing in the region, nearly a fifth of the population remains impoverished [
19]. Public sector health services are delivered by various levels of government, and primary care is the responsibility of municipal and city governments implemented through their networks of rural health units, health centres and barangay (village) health stations. However, access to both public and private care remains inequitable due to the maldistribution of health facilities and staff [
18].
In contrast, Malaysia is a multi-cultural and highly urbanised nation with less than a third of the Philippine population [
20]. Malaysia’s health system has been noted for its highly developed public sector, and particularly its extensive network of health centres and community clinics that provide good levels of access to free primary care throughout the country [
20]. As a result, government services have increasingly served rural populations and the poor, while private services tend to be used more by better-off people who live in urban areas – a pattern of health service use also observed in the Philippines [
18,
20].
The difference in national wealth and economic development between the two countries is also reflected in spending on health, with total expenditure in Malaysia being three times the level in the Philippines (i.e. per capita total health expenditure in 2019 was 142 US Dollars in the Philippines vs. 437 US Dollars in Malaysia). While over half of the spending on health in Malaysia is covered by government transfers raised by taxation (51.5%) with another 34.6% paid by out-of-pocket spending from individuals and households, the situation in Philippines is reversed, with 48.6% of health spending coming out-of-pocket and 34.0% covered by government transfers [
21].
In the Philippines, a small but significant portion of health care is also financed via social health insurance administered by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), which covers more than 90% of the population, including the poor whose insurance premiums are subsidised by the government. However, the financial protection provided by PhilHealth is limited, as coverage focuses on inpatient care and only the outpatient care poor PhilHealth members, resulting in high levels of out-of-pocket spending [
18].
Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is a common chronic condition for which existing conventional medicine offers safe and effective treatments – yet, only a third of affected individuals are able to successfully manage the condition [
22]. Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), which in turn, is the key driver of the global burden from NCDs, [
23] and particularly in Southeast Asia [
24]. In Malaysia, NCDs now account 74% of all disability-adjusted life years lost, and 65% in the Philippines [
23]. While several studies have explored the use of TCAM by individuals with hypertension in a number of Southeast Asian countries, [
11,
25‐
30] similar evidence from the Philippines and Malaysia is unavailable or of limited scope. As such, this study primarily aims to describe and compare the use of TCAM specifically for the management of hypertension among low-income individuals. It also seeks to assess the potential determinants of TCAM use for hypertension and the potential effects of TCAM use on hypertension management outcomes. It is hoped that the resulting evidence could inform more equitable and inclusive strategies to improve hypertension management outcomes in both countries, and LMICs more broadly.
Discussion
In this study of hypertensive adults living in low-income communities in two middle-income Southeast Asian countries, 9% in Malaysia and 19% in the Philippines reported that they were currently using some form of TCAM for hypertension, most of whom were using it to complement their treatment with conventional medications (Table
1).
Making comparisons with other literature is challenging due to differences in how TCAM use is measured, and our focus on hypertension and on the poorest communities [
2,
36]. What we observed is considerably lower than what has been seen in the general populations of both Malaysia (56%) and the Philippines (43%), [
1,
15] however, these estimates capture
any use over the past 6 or 12 months for any reason, as opposed to our estimates of
current use (i.e. in the past 2 weeks) for hypertension. Similarly, our figures are lower than what has been observed among hypertensive primary care patients both in Thailand and Cambodia, 33% of whom used
herbal medicine over the past 12 months, as opposed to
use in the past 2 weeks of any TCAM modality as in our metric; [
27,
42] and also in Malaysia, 27% of whom reported using any TCAM [
30]. Our observations are, however, broadly consistent with national estimates among people diagnosed with hypertension from the WHO STEPS surveys in the region, which found that 15% in Cambodia, 13% in Myanmar, but also 3% in Laos
consulted TCAM providers for any reason during the previous 12 months (as opposed to
used any TCAM modality for hypertension specifically) [
3].
Although our samples include only low-income households and women are over-represented – both of which are known predictors of TCAM use and would, therefore, predict higher rates of use [
10] – our lower estimates are not entirely unexpected. Other RESPOND study findings have clearly demonstrated that hypertension is widely viewed as a minor health condition that requires treatment with medications only when experiencing symptoms [
43]. This general attitude toward treatment is likely to extend to the use of TCAM for hypertension, predisposing a lower rate of current TCAM use given the largely asymptomatic nature of hypertension. Also, qualitative findings indicate that a major reason patients use TCAM is to manage the side effects of conventional antihypertensive medications when they arise, [
44,
45] and therefore, may only be used intermittently.
What is perhaps more telling is that the prevalence of TCAM use for hypertension in the Philippines is double what was observed in Malaysia. Our analysis of the determinants of TCAM use showed that belief in the effectiveness of TCAM for hypertension treatment increased the likelihood of use in both countries (although, we cannot rule out the possible effect of reverse causality in this observation as a cross-sectional study). Nevertheless, the much higher proportion of Filipinos who held this belief compared to in Malaysia (55% vs. 21%) is a clear driver of this difference. There may be other important predisposing factors underlying this difference that we did not examine in our study, such as the level of satisfaction with conventional medicine, and the influence of friends and family [
2,
46].
The mix of commonly used TCAM modalities is also likely to underlie this cross-country difference in the prevalence of TCAM use, which is, in turn, a product of individual preferences, and the modalities available and affordable to them. Natural and biologically-based therapies were the most commonly mentioned form in both countries, comprising 91% of mentions in the Philippines, but only 57% in Malaysia; and most of these mentions referred to herbal remedies that may be affordably purchased or grown in gardens for self-administration. This predominance of herbal treatments for hypertension has also been noted in studies from Cambodia, [
42] Laos, [
28] Myanmar, [
26] and Thailand [
25,
27]. While in Malaysia, more costly provider-based treatments, namely massage and cupping, were also often used (Tables
2 and
3). This preference for more costly provider-based treatments is also reflected in the observed levels of TCAM expenditures (Table
1), where Malaysian households tended to allocate more of their total household and health budgets on TCAM, despite their lower use. Yet overall, spending on TCAM by low-income households in both countries was relatively low, meaning that it not likely to be a significant driver of health or social inequality.
Finally, the difference in TCAM use for hypertension may also reflect lower levels of available, affordable and acceptable conventional primary care services and medications for hypertension in the Philippines, when compared to Malaysia. For example, despite high levels of confidence in the overall health system in both countries, only about half in the Philippines (55%) reported visiting a health provider at least 2 times per year for any reason compared to 85% in Malaysia, reflecting a crucial difference in realised access to or actual use of conventional care. Realised access accounts for both the care that is on offer and whether the individual is willing and able to use it [
47]. A number of known supply-side drivers of TCAM use related to dissatisfaction with conventional healthcare, such as long distance to facilities, unavailability of medicines, negative attitude of healthcare providers and long waiting times, [
2,
40] are all more prevalent in the Philippines [
18,
20].
Our finding that TCAM is mainly being used concurrently with, rather than as an alternative to conventional medication, which has also been reported in other Southeast Asian studies, [
29,
30] is potentially encouraging. This is also consistent with our observation that TCAM use was not associated with decreased (or increased) use of conventional antihypertensive medication (Table
5). As noted above, qualitative findings from both countries indicate that many use TCAM concurrently to relieve the perceived side effects of their conventional medications [
44,
45]. However, among the forms that were used in our study population, namely a wide range of herbal treatments, massage, cupping and acupuncture, evidence on their effectiveness at lowering blood pressure as a complementary or alternative treatment to antihypertensive medications is either of low quality, conflicting or suggestive of no benefit [
48‐
52].
Of particular concern is the lack of safety data on such treatments when used either alone on as an adjuvant to conventional hypertension medications. Thus, addressing this knowledge gap provides a clear justification for the national TCAM policies, regulations and institutions enacted in many countries, including Malaysia and the Philippines, and a focus for the work on establishing the efficacy, adverse effects and drug interactions that they must do. In the interim, the absence of such safety data must guide regulation of the marketing of these treatments, and should be highlighted in clinical and public health messaging to empower individuals to make more evidence-informed decisions about TCAM use for the management of hypertension.
While there may be little evidence on either the benefits or harms of TCAM for hypertension when used as an alternative or complementary to conventional treatments, there is strong evidence that TCAM use could reduce adherence to conventional blood pressure-lowering medication and, ultimately, the likelihood of achieving hypertension control, [
53] which is also suggested by our study findings (Table
5). Qualitative findings from Malaysia may help to explain this negative association, which reveal a widely-held belief among TCAM practitioners that hypertension was curable and that traditional remedies for hypertension should not be taken concurrently with conventional medications [
45]. Our inability to detect statistically significant associations between TCAM use and hypertension medication adherence and control is likely due to a lack of power. But in the case of adherence which is measured using self-reports, we also acknowledge that our estimates are affected by measurement error, as lay understandings of adherence and the chronic nature of hypertension are known to substantially differ from clinical ones [
43,
54]. Hence, our levels of adherence are likely to be overestimated and the association between TCAM use and adherence is likely to be underestimated. Our finding that TCAM use was not associated with self-rated wellbeing is also consistent with evidence from the literature [
55]. Therefore, clinical and public health messaging to hypertensive populations should aim to increase knowledge and understanding of the importance of long-term medication adherence for hypertension, especially in light of its typically asymptomatic – yet chronic – nature, along with the effectiveness of existing medications, which itself was a strong determinant of TCAM use.
One final consideration in interpreting our findings concerns their generalisability to other low-income communities in Malaysia and the Philippines, and to other LMICs. Although there were some notable differences in the characteristics of the participants included and excluded in this analysis (Appendix
3 in the Supplemental information), the small numbers of those excluded are unlikely to affect our estimates. Our results on the determinants of TCAM use in Malaysia align with those from a study of the rural Malaysian population, which also found belief in the effectiveness of TCAM, higher education levels and lower household wealth to be strong predictors [
12] While this finding on education is inconsistent with other studies, particularly from LMICs, [
2,
10] a similar positive association between TCAM use and education has been observed in various high-income settings, [
56,
57] likely reflecting Malaysia’s current socio-economic status and trajectory. As previously noted, women were over-represented in our sample, likely reflecting their higher availability and/or willingness to participate; but this does not appear to have produced any inexplicable findings. Others have also suggested that TCAM use is likely to be underreported due to social desirability bias; [
45,
58,
59] yet we have taken steps to minimise this by interviewing respondents in their homes (rather than in clinical settings) and by deploying non-medical professionals trained in non-judgemental interviewing techniques. On the other hand, we accept that participants may have still considered the study as ‘clinical’ because it involved blood pressure measurement at enrolment. The median household income, level of hypertension control, education and employment observed in our country samples are closely aligned with national data, [
22,
60,
61] which suggests that we have, indeed, sampled a suitable cross-section of hypertensive adults in low-income communities.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.