Explanatory Model for the Use of Traditional Medicines in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Introduction: Traditional medicines are one of the most important means of achieving total health care coverage globally, and their importance in Tanzania extends beyond the impoverished rural areas. Their use remains high even in urban settings among the educated middle and upper classes. They are a critical component healthcare in Tanzania, but they also can have harmful side effects. Therefore we sought to understand the decision-making and reasoning processes by building an explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Tanzania.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study between December 2013 and June 2014 in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania. Using purposive sampling methods, we conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews of key informants, and the qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive Framework Method. A structured survey was created, piloted, and then administered it to a random sample of adults. We reported upon the reliability and validity of the structured survey, and we used triangulation from multiple sources to synthesize the qualitative and quantitative data.

Results: A total of five FGDs composed of 59 participants and 27 in-depth interviews were conducted in total. 16 of the in-depth interviews were with self-described traditional practitioners or herbal vendors. We identified five major thematic categories that relate to the decision to use traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro: healthcare delivery, disease understanding, credibility of the traditional practices, health status, and strong cultural beliefs.

A total of 473 participants (24.1% male) completed the structured survey. The most common reasons for taking traditional medicines were that they are more affordable (14%, 12.0-16.0), failure of hospital medicines (13%, 11.1-15.0), they work better (12%, 10.7-14.4), they are easier

to obtain (11%, 9.48-13.1), they are found naturally or free (8%, 6.56-9.68), hospital medicines have too many chemical (8%, 6.33-9.40), and they have fewer side effects (8%, 6.25-9.30). The most common uses of traditional medicines were for symptomatic conditions (42%), chronic diseases (14%), reproductive problems (11%), and malaria and febrile illnesses (10%). Participants currently taking hospital medicines for chronic conditions were nearly twice as likely to report traditional medicines usage in the past year (RR 1.97, p=0.05).

Conclusions: We built broad explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro. The use of traditional medicines is not limited to rural or low socioeconomic populations and concurrent use of traditional medicines and biomedicine is high with frequent ethnomedical doctor shopping. Our model provides a working framework for understanding the complex interactions between biomedicine and traditional medicine. Future disease management and treatment programs will benefit from this understanding, and it can lead to synergistic policies with more effective implementation.

A novel inflammatory biomarker, GlycA, associates with disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis and cardio-metabolic risk in BMI-matched controls

BACKGROUND: RA and CVD both have inflammation as part of the underlying biology. Our objective was to explore the relationships of GlycA, a measure of glycosylated acute phase proteins, with inflammation and cardiometabolic risk in RA, and explore whether these relationships were similar to those for persons without RA. METHODS: Plasma GlycA was determined for 50 individuals with mild-moderate RA disease activity and 39 controls matched for age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). Regression analyses were performed to assess relationships between GlycA and important markers of traditional inflammation and cardio-metabolic health: inflammatory cytokines, disease activity, measures of adiposity and insulin resistance. RESULTS: On average, RA activity was low (DAS-28 = 3.0 ± 1.4). Traditional inflammatory markers, ESR, hsCRP, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-18 and TNF-α were greater in RA versus controls (P < 0.05 for all). GlycA concentrations were significantly elevated in RA versus controls (P = 0.036). In RA, greater GlycA associated with disease activity (DAS-28; RDAS-28 = 0.5) and inflammation (RESR = 0.7, RhsCRP = 0.7, RIL-6 = 0.3: P < 0.05 for all); in BMI-matched controls, these inflammatory associations were absent or weaker (hsCRP), but GlycA was related to IL-18 (RhsCRP = 0.3, RIL-18 = 0.4: P < 0.05). In RA, greater GlycA associated with more total abdominal adiposity and less muscle density (Rabdominal-adiposity = 0.3, Rmuscle-density = -0.3, P < 0.05 for both). In BMI-matched controls, GlycA associated with more cardio-metabolic markers: BMI, waist circumference, adiposity measures and insulin resistance (R = 0.3-0.6, P < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: GlycA provides an integrated measure of inflammation with contributions from traditional inflammatory markers and cardio-metabolic sources, dominated by inflammatory markers in persons with RA and cardio-metabolic factors in those without.