Knowledge and Attitude Towards Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine on Colorectal Cancer Among Northern Malaysians

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide causing approximately 10% of all cancer cases and is the second most frequent disease which is one of the leading causes of cancer-related fatalities. Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) refers to a broad range of health practices, therapies and products typically not part of the ‘conventional medicine’ system, and its use is substantial among the general population. The knowledge and awareness levels about TCAM and the use of allopathic medications for the treatment of cancer are varied among individuals. The studies were conducted on the knowledge and awareness of the public on cancer, however, no studies specifically addressing the knowledge, attitude and practice of TCAM about CRC were found in Malaysia. Purpose: The present study aims to assess the knowledge of CRC and attitude towards TCAM in terms of CRC among a representative sample in Malaysia and identifying the sources of information about CRC and gauging the satisfaction levels with the services of a traditional medicine practitioner. Materials and Methods: A validated self-administered questionnaire and educational brochure were utilized for this study. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit respondents (n = 548) from Kedah and Penang. The calculated sample size was 500. SPSS v25 was used to analyse the data. Results: The demographic data were statistically significant (p < 0.05), the inference could be the sampling technique. Of the 548 respondents, 50.7% (n = 278) of them were CRC survivors. About 96.2% (n = 527) understood that CRC occurs in the colon or rectum. The majority were aware that rectal bleeding (75.4%) and blood in the stool (80.7%), are CRC’s signs and symptoms, while only 24.6% identified weakness and fatigue as CRC’s signs and symptoms. The respondents had poor knowledge scores (13.72 out of 31.00) as per Bloom’s cut-off scoring system. In terms of attitude towards TCAM, the majority had a ‘neutral’ (neither agree nor disagree) opinion for all the statements, meaning that the respondents surveyed were very undecided (neither positive nor negative opinion). Conclusion: Knowledge of CRC was poor for the cohort, while the attitude towards TCAMs was neutral. The average ‘neutral’ response in the attitude domain could indicate that the respondents had minimal understanding of TCAM about CRC. Further, longitudinal studies can be conducted to better gauge the public’s knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) towards CRC and TCAM. This highlights the importance of educational interventions which may help to improve the public’s KAP towards CRC and TCAM.