Table 3.
Quantitative results (n = 166) | Qualitative results (n = 16) | |
---|---|---|
Question | Frequency (%) | |
Reasons why HDS used (n = 271)* | ||
Family/friend’s recommendation | 95 (35) | Influenced by their social network who were health care professionals or teachers (n = 9) |
HDS will work | 65 (24) | Perception of their benefits |
Willing to try anything that helps | 53 (20) | (n = 11) |
Prefer to use HDS | 26 (10) | Health care needs (n = 7) |
Willing to try (n = 4) | ||
Intention to use (n = 2) | ||
Health care provider’s recommendation | 17 (6) | No mention |
Safer than CM or no adverse effects from using HDS, compared with CM | 8 (3) | Perception of their safety (n = 5) |
Their characteristics | ||
No or little side effects | ||
Safer than CM | ||
Had experiences or concerns about adverse effects of CM (n = 2) | ||
Easy access | 4 (2) | No mention |
Recommended by traditional practitioners or HDS sellers | 2 (< 1) | Their family recommended and then consulting Chinese herbal medicine practitioners (n = 1) |
Recommended by fellow patients | 1 (< 1) | Influenced by their social network (n = 9) |
Information sources (n = 188)* | ||
Family and friends | 100 (53) | Influenced by their social network (n = 9) |
TV, radio, internet, leaflets, books or scientific evidence | 59 (31) | Influenced by the media (n = 9) |
Practitioners | 18 (10) | No mention |
HDS sellers | 6 (3) | No mention |
Own knowledge of HDS | 4 (2) | No mention |
Another patient with CKD | 1 (1) | No mention |
*Participants were able to report more than one reason or information source, so these total more than 166.
CM = Conventional medicine.