Sari Purboyekti

Between Tradition and Modernity: Understanding Public Perceptions of Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Introduction

Between tradition and modernity: understanding public perceptions of complementary and alternative medicine. Understand public perceptions of complementary & alternative medicine (CAM). Research shows positive views on traditional practices like cupping, acupuncture, & herbal remedies, bridging tradition & modern healthcare.

Abstract

Purpose of the study: The aim of this study is to determine public perceptions of complementary and alternative medicine. Methodology: This research is quantitative with a descriptive design. The sample consisted of 88 residents of Pondok Benda Village, RW 013, Pamulang 2, using a random sampling technique. Data collection used a questionnaire developed by the researcher. Main Findings: The results of the study showed that 53.4% of respondents had a positive perception of complementary and alternative medicine, 62.6% had a positive perception of cupping, 60.2% of respondents had a positive perception of acupuncture and acupressure, the same number of respondents had a positive perception of reflexology, 80.7% of respondents had a positive perception of herbal medicine, 60.2% of respondents had a positive perception of bone fracture experts, 61.4% of respondents had a positive perception of shaman sembur, and 61.4% of respondents had a positive perception of the advantages and disadvantages of complementary and alternative medicine. Novelty/Originality of this study: The novelty of this research lies in revealing public perceptions of complementary and alternative medicine, a practice rarely studied in depth. This study provides new insights into the social, cultural, and belief factors that influence people's choices in using non-conventional medicine as an alternative or complement to modern medical treatment.

Review

This study addresses a pertinent topic by investigating public perceptions of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), effectively bridging the discourse between traditional practices and modern healthcare approaches. The research clearly articulates its purpose, which is to determine these perceptions, and employs a quantitative descriptive design, which is suitable for identifying prevailing attitudes. The main findings indicate a generally positive perception across various CAM modalities, including cupping, acupuncture, reflexology, herbal medicine, and traditional bone fracture experts and "shaman sembur" practices. This initial insight into local perceptions is valuable, particularly given the specific cultural context of Pondok Benda Village, and contributes to understanding community health beliefs and practices. However, several methodological aspects warrant critical consideration. The sample size of 88 residents from a single village, while providing a snapshot of that specific community, severely limits the generalizability of the findings to "public perceptions" more broadly. This small, localized sample makes it difficult to draw conclusions beyond the immediate study area. Furthermore, the questionnaire used for data collection was "developed by the researcher," and the abstract does not provide any information regarding its validity, reliability, or specific constructs measured. In quantitative research, the robustness of the instrument is paramount, especially when assessing subjective concepts like perception. The inclusion of diverse practices such as "shaman sembur" alongside more commonly recognized CAMs like acupuncture also suggests a broad definition of CAM, which, while potentially reflective of local practice, should be explicitly framed and justified within the study's conceptual framework. Despite these limitations, the study offers an important starting point for understanding how specific communities view non-conventional healthcare options. The stated novelty, revealing perceptions of CAM in a context "rarely studied in depth," is valid for this particular micro-region and the specific blend of practices considered. Future research would benefit significantly from a larger, more diverse sample to enhance generalizability, a detailed account of the questionnaire's development and psychometric properties, and potentially a mixed-methods approach to delve deeper into the "social, cultural, and belief factors" alluded to in the novelty statement. Such an expansion would provide a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of *why* these perceptions exist, rather than just *what* they are, thereby maximizing the study's potential impact on public health discourse and policy.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.