INTRODUCTION:

Old age consists of ages nearing or surpassing the life expectancy of human beings. They will start to have many health problems and take a lot of medicine. More than 37 million people in this group will manage more than one chronic condition by 2030.¹

Conventional medicine is medicine that is practiced by doctors and by health professionals who work with them, including physical therapists and psychologists, Conventional medicine is a medical model of evidence based practice for diagnosing and treating disease.²

If medicine or therapy is used alone or instead of conventional medicine, it is called “alternative” medicine. If the treatment or therapy is done along with or in addition to conventional medicine, it is referred to as “complementary medicine”.³

Alternative medical systems incorporate many of the different practices.⁴ For example, the Traditional Chinese practice of acupuncture may be combined with herbal medicine, Ayurveda includes the mind-body therapies of meditation and yoga, along with the biologically based practice of taking specific herbs for health reasons.⁵

System of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has launched National AYUSH Mission (NAM) during 12th Plan for implementing through States.⁶Multiple remedies, including complementary and alternative medicine products, over-the-counter products, and prescription drugs, have been used to prevent and treat minor ailments.⁷

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

· To assess the usage of conventional medicine for management of minor ailments among older adults residing in selected areas of district Mohali, Punjab.

· To assess the usage of complementary and alternate medicine for management of minor ailments among older adults residing in selected areas of district Mohali, Punjab.

· To compare the findings regarding usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine for management of minor ailments among older adults residing in selected areas of district Mohali, Punjab.

· To associate the findings with selected socio- demographic variables.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

In this study, quantitative approach and comparative research design was used. Study was conducted in selected village of district Mohali. Target population of study was older adults in selected village of district Mohali, Punjab. By purposive sampling technique, 150 older adults were selected. Checklist was used to collect the data from older adults in selected village of Mohali.

Inclusion criteria:

Those older adults who were:

· Above 60 years of age

· Available at the time of data collection

· Could read or understand Hindi/ English

Exclusion criteria:

· Those older adults who were not willing to participate

FINDINGS:

Table 1.1 shows that according to the age of older adults, majority 41.3% were in the age group of 60-65 years, 39.3% were in 66-70 years and minimum 19.3% were in the age of >70 years. Maximum of subjects 61.3% were females and 38.7% were males. All subjects were married. According to educational status of older adults, 61.3% had no formal education, 15.3% had studiedtill primary, 18.0% had studied till matric and 5.3% had studied till secondary. In occupational status, 54.7% were unemployed, 4.7% were private employee, 11.3% were self-employee and 29.3 were retired. According to family monthly income, 4.0% of older adults had income less than equal to Rs.5000, 22.7% had Rs.5001-10000, 30.0% had Rs.10001-15000 and 43.3% had Rs.>15000. As per religion, majority 91.3% older adults were Sikh and 8.7% were Hindu. In relation to type of family, majority 94.0% were from joint family and 6.0% were from nuclear family. Majority 53.3% had got the information about complementary and alternate medicine from mass media, 44.0% had got information from relatives/ friends/ peer group and 2.7% had got information from health professionals.

Table – 1.1 Frequency and percentage distribution of older adults according to their socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio demographic variables	Frequency	%
1.	Age (years)
	60 – 65	62	41.3
	66 – 70	59	39.3
	> 70	29	19.3
2.	Gender
	Male	58	38.7
	Female	92	61.3
3.	Marital status
	Married	150	100.0
	Unmarried	0	0.0
	Divorced	0	0.0
	Widow/ widower	0	0.0
4.	Educational status
	No formal education	92	61.3
	Primary	23	15.3
	Matric	27	18.0
	Secondary	8	5.3
	Graduate and above	0	0.0
5.	Occupational status
	Unemployed	82	54.7
	Private employee	7	4.7
	Self-employee	17	11.3
	Retired	44	29.3
6.	Income (Rs.)
	≤ 5000	6	4.0
	5001 – 10000	34	22.7
	10001 – 15000	45	30.0
	> 15000	65	43.3
7.	Religion
	Hindu	13	8.7
	Sikh	137	91.3
8.	Type of family
	Nuclear	9	6.0
	Joint	141	94.0
9.	Source of information about CAM
	Relatives/friends/peer group	66	44.0
	Mass media	80	53.3
	Health professionals	4	2.7
	Any other	0	0.0

Table 2.1: Frequency and percentage distribution of older adults according to choice of treatment method used for common cold

N-150

Treatment method for common cold	f	%
No	1	0.7
Conventional	2	1.3
CAM	13	8.7
Both	134	89.3

Table 2.1 depicts 89.3% older adults were usingboth conventional medicine and CAM simultaneously, 8.7% were using only CAM, 1.3% were using only conventional medicine and 0.7% were not using any treatment method for common cold.

Table 2.2 Frequency and percentage distribution of adults according to choice of treatment method used for headache N-150

Treatment method for headache	f	%
No	2	1.3
Conventional	6	4.0
CAM	25	16.7
Both	117	78.0

Table 2.2 depicts 78.0% older adults were using both conventional medicine and CAM simultaneously, 16.7% were using only CAM, 4.0% were using only conventional medicine and 1.3% were not using any treatment method for headache.

Table 2.3: Frequency and percentage distribution of older adults according to choice of treatment method used for body ache N-150

Treatment method for body ache	Frequency	Percentage
No	6	4.0
Conventional	15	10.0
CAM	27	18.0
Both	102	68.0

Table 2.3 depicts 68.0% older adults were using both conventional medicine and CAM simultaneously, 18.0% were using only CAM, 10.0% were using only conventional medicine and 4.0% were not using any treatment method for body ache.

Table 2.4: Frequency and percentage distribution of older adults according to choice of treatment method used for joint pain N-150

Treatment method for joint pain	Frequency	Percentage
No	5	3.3
Conventional	7	4.7
CAM	36	24.0
Both	102	68.0

Table 2.4 depicts 68.0% older adults were using both conventional medicine and CAM simultaneously, 24% were using only CAM, 4.7% were using only conventional medicine and 3.3% were not using any treating method for joint pain.

Table 2.5 Frequency and percentage distribution of older adults according to choice of treatment method used for loose motion

N-150

Treatment method for loose motion	f	%
No	5	3.3
Conventional	1	0.7
CAM	33	22.0
Both	111	74.0

Table 2.5 depicts 74.0% older adults were using both conventional medicine and CAM simultaneously, 22.0% were using only CAM, 0.7% were using only conventional medicine and 3.3% were not using any treating method for loose motion.

Table 2.6: Frequency and percentage distribution of older adults according to choice of treatment method used for constipation

N-150

Treatment method for constipation	f	%
No	3	2.0
Conventional	4	2.7
CAM	31	20.7
Both	112	74.7

Table 2.6 depicts 74.7% older adults were using both conventional medicine and CAM simultaneously, 20.7% were using only CAM, 2.7% were using only conventional medicine and 2.0% were not using any treating method for constipation.

Table 3.1: Comparison of the findings of usage of conventional versus CAM for management of common cold N-150

Choice for Treatment method	Conventional		CAM		X²	df	p-value
	n₁	%	n₂	%
Yes	136	90.7	147	98.0	7.545	1	0.006*
No	14	9.3	3	2.0

*significant, p<0.05

Table 3.1 shows that CAM users were more than conventional users for management of common cold.

Table 3.2: Comparison of the findings of usage of conventional versus CAM for management of headache N-150

Choice for Treatment method	Conventional		CAM		X²	df	p-value
	N	%	N	%
Yes	123	82.0	142	94.7	11.677	1	0.000*
No	27	18.0	8	5.3

*significant, p<0.05

Table 3.2 shows CAM users were more than conventional users for management of headache.

Table 3.3: Comparison of the findings of usage of conventional versus CAM for management of body ache N-150

Choice for Treatment method	Conventional		CAM		X²	df	p-value
	N	%	N	%
Yes	117	78.0	132	88.0	5.315	1	0.021*
No	33	22.0	18	12.0

*significant, p<0.05

Table 3.3 shows CAM users were more than conventional users for management of body ache.

Table 3.4: Comparison of the findings of usage of conventional versus CAM for management of joint pain N-150

Choice for Treatment method	Conventional		CAM		X²	df	p-value
	N	%	N	%
Yes	109	72.7	138	92.0	19.273	1	0.000*
No	41	27.3	12	8.0

*significant, p<0.05

Table 3.4 shows CAM users were more than conventional users for management of joint pain.

Table 3.5: Comparison of the findings of usage of conventional versus CAM for management of loose motion N-150

Choice for Treatment method	Conventional		CAM		X²	df	p-value
	N	%	N	%
Yes	112	74.7	144	96.0	27.273	1	0.000*
No	38	25.3	6	4.0

*significant, p<0.05

Table 3.5 shows CAM users were more than conventional users for management of loose motion.

Table 3.6: Comparison of the findings of usage of conventional versus CAM for management of constipation N-150

Choice for Treatment method	Conventional		CAM		X²	df	p-value
	N	%	N	%
Yes	116	77.3	143	95.3	20.595	1	0.000*
No	34	22.7	7	4.7

*significant, p<0.05

Table 3.6 shows CAM users were more than conventional users for management of constipation.

Table: 4.1 Association of usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine (CAM) for management of common cold with socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio-demographic variables	f	No (n₁-1)	CON (n₂-2)	CAM (n₃-13)	Both (n₄-134)	*X²,* df, p-value
1.	Age(years)						8.394^NS, 6, 0.211
	60 – 65	62	1(1.6)	1(1.6)	4(6.5)	56(90.3)
	66 – 70	59	0(0.0)	1(1.7)	3(5.1)	55(93.2)
	> 70	29	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	6(20.7)	23(79.3)
2.	Gender						1.936^NS, 3, 0.586
	Male	58	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	5(8.6)	53(91.4)
	Female	92	1(1.1)	2(2.2.0)	8(8.7)	81(88.0)
3.	Educational status						6.601^NS, 9, 0.679
	No formal education	92	1(1.1)	1(1.1)	10(10.9)	80(87.0)
	Primary	23	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	3(13.0)	20(87.0)
	Matric	27	0(0.0)	1(3.7)	0(0.0)	26(96.3)
	Secondary	8	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	8(100.0)
4.	Religion						1.700^NS, 3, 0.637
	Hindu	13	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	13(100.0)
	Sikh	137	1(0.7)	2(1.5)	13(9.5)	121(88.3)

significant, p<0.05

NS-non significant

Table 4.1 depicts that association between findings of common cold and selected socio-demographic variables were not found significant.

Table: 4.2 Association of usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine (CAM) for management of headache with socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio-demographic variables	f	No (n1-2)	CON (n2-6)	CAM (n4-25)	Both (n4-117)	X2, df, p-value
1.	Age(years)						14.091*, 6, 0.029
	60 – 65	62	1(1.6)	2(3.2)	12(19.4)	47(75.8)
	66 – 70	59	1(1.7)	1(1.7)	4(6.8)	53(89.8)
	> 70	29	0(0.0)	3(10.3)	9(31.0)	17(58.6)
2.	Gender						3.388NS, 3, 0.336
	Male	58	1(1.7)	1(1.7)	13(22.4)	43(74.1)
	Female	92	1(1.1)	5(5.4)	12(13.0)	74(80.4)
3.	Educational status						10.770NS, 9, 0.292
	No formal education	92	2(2.2)	6(6.5)	17(18.5)	67(72.8)
	Primary	23	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	6(26.1)	17(73.9)
	Matric	27	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	2(7.4)	25(92.6)
	Secondary	8	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	8(100)
44.	Religion						1.166NS, 3, 0.761
	Hindu	13	0(0.0)	1(7.7)	3(23.1)	9(69.2)
	Sikh	137	2(1.5)	5(3.6)	22(16.1)	108(78.8)

*significant, p<0.05

NS-non significant

Table 4.2 depicts that association between findings of headache and selected socio-demographic variables among which age was found significant while gender, educational status andreligion were not found significant.

Table: 4.3 Association of usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine (CAM) for management of body ache with socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio-demographic variables	f	No (n₁-6)	CON (n₂-15)	CAM (n₃-27)	Both (n₄-102)	X², df, p-value
1.	Age(years)						7.737^NS, 6, 0.258
	60 – 65	62	5(8.1)	8(12.9)	8(12.9)	41(66.1)
	66 – 70	59	1(1.7)	4(6.8)	14(23.7)	40(67.8)
	> 70	29	0(0.0)	3(10.3)	5(17.2)	21(72.4)
2.	Gender						8.011*, 3, 0.046
	Male	58	3(5.2)	2(3.4)	7(12.1)	46(79.3)
	Female	92	3(3.3)	13(14.1)	20(21.7)	56(60.9)
3.	Educational status						8.201^NS, 9, 0.514
	No formal education	92	5(5.4)	8(8.7)	18(19.6)	61(66.3)
	Primary	23	1(4.3)	3(13.0)	5(21.7)	14(60.9)
	Matric	27	0(0.0)	2(7.4)	2(7.4)	23(85.2)
	Secondary	8	0(0.0)	2(25.0)	2(25.0)	4(50.0)
4.	Religion						2.270^NS, 3, 0.518
	Hindu	13	1(7.7)	1(7.7)	4(30..8)	7(53.8)
	Sikh	137	5(3.6)	14(10.2)	23(16.8)	95(69.3)

*significant, p<0.05

NS-non significant

Table 4.3 depicts that association between findings of body ache and selected socio-demographic variables among which gender was found significant while age, educational status and religion were not found significant.

Table: 4.4 Association of usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine (CAM) for management of joint pain with socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio-demographic variables	f	No (n₁-5)	CON (n₂-7)	CAM (n₃-36)	Both (n₄-102)	X², df, p-value
1.	Age(years)						6.699^NS, 6, 0.350
	60 – 65	62	1(1.6)	4(6.5)	17(27.4)	40(64.5)
	66 – 70	59	4(6.8)	1(1.7)	14(23.7)	40(67.8)
	> 70	29	0(0.0)	2(6.9)	5(17.2)	22(75.9)
2.	Gender						3.617^NS, 3, 0.306
	Male	58	2(3.4)	1(1.7)	11(19.0)	44(75.9)
	Female	92	3(3.3)	6(6.5)	25(27.2)	58(63.0)
3.	Educational status						12.026^NS, 9, 0.212
	No formal education	92	4(4.3)	4(4.3)	21(22.8)	63(68.5)
	Primary	23	0(0.0)	3(13.0)	7(30.4)	13(56.5)
	Matric	27	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	5(18.5)	22(81.5)
	Secondary	8	1(12.5)	0(0.0)	3(37.5)	4(50.0)
4.	Religion						10.127*, 3, 0.018
	Hindu	13	1(7.7)	2(15.4)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)
	Sikh	137	4(2.9)	5(3.6)	30(21.9)	98(71.5)

*significant, p<0.05

NS-non significant

Table 4.4 depicts that association between findings of joint pain and selected socio-demographic variables among which religion was found significant while age, gender, educational status were not found significant.

Table: 4.5 Association of usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine (CAM) for management of loose motion with socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio-demographic variables	f	No (n₁-5)	CON (n₂-1)	CAM (n₃-33)	Both (n₄-111)	X², df, p-value
1.	Age(years)						8.452^NS, 6, 0.207
	60 – 65	62	2(3.2)	0(0.0)	11(17.7)	49(79.0)
	66 – 70	59	2(3.4)	1(1.7)	19(32.2)	37(62.7)
	> 70	29	1(3.4)	0(0.0)	3(10.3)	25(86.2)
2.	Gender						1.194^NS, 3, 0.754
	Male	58	2(3.4)	0(0.0)	11(19.0)	45(77.6)
	Female	92	3(3.3)	1(1.1)	22(23.9)	66(71.7)
3.	Educational status						4.661^NS, 9, 0.863
	No formal education	92	2(2.2)	1(1.1)	20(21.7)	69(75.0)
	Primary	23	1(4.3)	0(0.0)	4(17.4)	18(78.3)
	Matric	27	2(7.4)	0(0.0)	8(29.6)	17(63.0)
	Secondary	8	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	1(12.5)	7(87.5)
4.	Religion						11.312*, 3, 0.010
	Hindu	13	0(0.0)	1(7.7)	2(15.4)	10(76.9)
	Sikh	137	5(3.6)	0(0.0)	31(22.6)	101(73.7)

*significant, p<0.05

NS-non significant

Table: 4.6 Association of usage of conventional versus complementary and alternate medicine (CAM) for management of constipation with socio-demographic variables N-150

S. No.	Socio-demographic variables	f	No (n₁-5)	CON (n₂-1)	CAM (n₃-33)	Both (n₄-111)	X², df, p-value
1.	Age(years)						3.377^NS, 6, 0.760
	60 – 65	62	2(66.7)	3(75.0)	12(38.7)	45(40.2)
	66 – 70	59	2(33.3)	1(25.0)	13(41.9)	44(39.3)
	> 70	29	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	6(19.4)	23(20.5)
2.	Gender						5.652^NS, 3, 0.130
	Male	58	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	15(25.9)	43(74.1)
	Female	92	3(3.3)	4(4.3)	16(17.4)	69(75.0)
3.	Educational status						28.242*, 9, 0.001
	No formal education	92	2(2.2)	4(4.3)	20(21.7)	66(71.7)
	Primary	23	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	3(13.0)	20(87.0)
	Matric	27	0(0.0)	0(0.0)	2(7.4)	25(92.6)
	Secondary	8	1(12.5)	0(0.0)	6(75.0)	1(12.5)
4.	Religion						3.903^NS, 3, 0.272
	Hindu	13	1(7.7)	1(7.7)	2(15.4)	9(69.2)
	Sikh	137	2(1.5)	3(2.2)	29(21.2)	103(75.2)

*significant, p<0.05

NS-non significant

2. NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms, http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary?cdrid=449752/reviewed on 22/1/15.

4. Kids Health>Teens>Body>Getting Medical Care> Complementary Medicine. http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_body/medical_care/alternative_medicine.html#/reviewed on 27/3/15.

5. Healthy Lifestyle Consumer health.Complementary and alternative medicine http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/alternative-medicine/art-20045267/reviewed on 22/4/15.

6. Department of AYUSH Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India, http://www.nhp.gov.in/sites/default/files/pdf/national-ayush-mission-english.pdfreviewed on 5/4/16.

7. Hsiao CJ, Cherry DK, Beatty PC, Rechtsteiner EA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 summary. Natl Health Stat Report.2010;(27):132.http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0715/p153.html/reviewed on 5 april 2016.

8. Declan T. Barry et al. Use of conventional, complementary, and alternative treatments for pain among individuals seeking primary care treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone: HHS Author Manuscripts 2012 Dec; 6(4)274, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492534/reviewed on 25/2/16.