Awareness and use of home remedies in Italy’s alps: a population-based cross-sectional telephone survey

Abstract

Background Belief in complementary and alternative medicine practices is related to reduced preparedness for vaccination. This study aimed to assess home remedy awareness and use in South Tyrol, where vaccination rates in the coronavirus pandemic were lowest in Italy and differed between German- and Italian-speaking inhabitants. Methods A population-based survey was conducted in 2014 and analyzed using descriptive statistics, multiple logistic regression, and latent class analysis. Results Of the representative sample of 504 survey respondents, 357 (70.8%) participants (43.0% male; primary language German, 76.5%) reported to use home remedies. Most commonly reported home remedies were teas (48.2%), plants (21.0%), and compresses (19.5%). Participants from rural regions were less likely (odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.67), while female (2.62, 1.69–4.10) and German-speaking participants (5.52, 2.91–9.88) were more likely to use home remedies. Latent classes of home remedies were “alcoholic home remedies” (21.4%) and “non-alcohol-containing home remedies” (78.6%). Compared to the “non-alcohol-containing home remedies” class, members of the “alcoholic home remedies” class were more likely to live in an urban region, to be male and German speakers. Conclusion In addition to residence and sex, language group membership associates with awareness and use of home remedies. Home remedies likely contribute to socio-cultural differences between the language groups in the Italian Alps. If the observed associations explain the lower vaccination rates in South Tyrol among German speakers requires further study.

Use and perceived effectiveness of non-pharmacological home remedies for digestive symptoms: a questionnaire-based survey among primary care patients

“…The use of NPHRs seems to depend on language and cultural background, tradition, and the availability of natural resources. 20–22 Second, as our study was observational, confounding factors could have biased our findings. In particular, the perceived effectiveness could have been overestimated.…”