Perception of Complementary Medicine and Treatment Adherence as Predictors of Self-Efficacy in Individuals with Chronic Conditions in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ABSTRACT

Described the article

INTRODUCTION

This included the epidemiology of chronic disease.

While CAM was described as an adjunct and minimally invasive, it would have been helpful for some examples to be given.

Treatment adherence and self-efficacy is defined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Why were patients who used some form of complementary therapy as part of their culture and / or religions.

Convenience sampling was used and 3 survey tools were administered – HCAMQ, MBG and General Self-Efficacy Scale.

Statistical analysis is described including multiple linear regression.

Appropriate ethics approval was obtained.

RESULTS

The sociodemographic characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1.

Correlation and linear regression model results are then presented.

DISCUSSION

The authors provide examples of CAM reported by participants e.g. acupuncture, meditation, aromatherapy and homeopathy.

Limitations are appropriately discussed.

CONCLUSION

The implications of the study are outlined, including observed gender differences.

The grammar of the article was of a high standard.

The types of CAM used should be included in the results section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your effort on the redaction of the current manuscript.

The theme is original and deserves exploration to achieve further information regarding factors that may contribute to treatment adherence, including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

In the abstract, the introduction contains information that contextualizes the theme explored in the manuscript.

The title identifies the study with an adequate structure.  

The introduction frames the theme addressed.

Nevertheless, some points may be improved:

Line 48-49: Consider expanding on the statement about the 41 million annual deaths caused by chronic conditions by briefly discussing the major contributing factors.

Line 57-58: The mention of poor quality primary care and inadequate hospitals is important. However, providing specific examples or data on how these factors manifest in Mexico would add depth to the argument.

Line 66-67: The definition of holistic care is useful, but an example of how this approach has been successfully implemented in a healthcare setting could provide practical context.

Line 73-74: The statistic about only 50% of chronic patients complying with treatment in developed countries is striking. Including a comparison with adherence rates in developing countries, if available, would highlight disparities and emphasize the need for improved strategies.

Lines 80-84: The discussion on the potential benefits of combining CAM with conventional treatment is compelling. Including a brief mention of any existing studies or evidence supporting these benefits would strengthen this point.

Overall, the methodology section is well-constructed, providing essential details about the sampling process, measures, and statistical analyses. A clarification on the rationale behind excluding participants who use therapy as part of their culture/religion, could impact the generalizability of the findings. Please also review the description of the inclusion criteria, the english language may be improved.

The discussion could be enhanced by offering more concrete suggestions for how healthcare providers might integrate CAM into conventional treatments. Discussing potential interventions, training programs for healthcare personnel, or policy recommendations would add practical value to the findings.

The conclusion provides a clear and concise summary of the study’s findings and their implications for public health. By incorporating more detailed recommendations, emphasizing practical applications, and acknowledging limitations, the conclusion could be further strengthened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor changes are recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf