Symptom intensity and the use of Complementary and Integrative Medicine for the treatment of depression in Brazil: a population-based study

Intensidade dos sintomas e uso da Medicina Integrativa e Complementar para tratamento da depressão no Brasil: estudo de base populacional

Intensidad de los síntomas y uso de la Medicina Integrativa y Complementaria para el tratamiento de la depresión en Brasil: estudio poblacional

Abstract

Many depressed patients opt for complementary integrative medicine (CIM). We aim to evaluate whether there is an association between the severity of depressive symptoms and CIM. A cross-sectional study using the Brazilian National Survey (PNS, 2019), a population-based study. A sample of 4,792 participants (15-107 years old) reporting a current treatment of depression was categorized into 3 groups: 1 (N=4,307, Yes Psychotherapy/Medication-No CIM), 2 (N=148, Yes CIM-No Psychotherapy/Medication) and 3 (N=337, Yes Psychotherapy/Medication-Yes CIM). Participants answered a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We used three categories of depression: no depression (score ≤9), mild (score 10-14) and moderate/severe (≥15). Multinomial logistic regression estimated crude/adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Among participants who reported using at least one type of CIM, 3.2% and 7.0% used CIM exclusively or associated with conventional treatments, respectively. The higher the intensity of depressive symptoms, the lower the chance of using CIM exclusively. In Brazil only a minority of depressed people use CIM exclusively.

Key words:
Integrative medicine; Complementary medicine; Depression; Therapeutics; Cross-sectional survey

Resumo

Muitos pacientes deprimidos optam pelas Práticas Integrativas Complementares (PICS). Nosso objetivo é avaliar se há associação entre a gravidade dos sintomas depressivos e uso de PICS. Estudo transversal utilizando dados da Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNS, 2019), estudo de base populacional. Uma amostra de 4.792 participantes (15-107 anos) relatando tratamento atual para depressão foi categorizada em 3 grupos: Grupo 1 (N=4.307, Sim para Psicoterapia/Medicação - Não para PICS); Grupo 2 (N=148, Sim para PICS - Não para Psicoterapia/Medicação) e Grupo 3 (N=337, Sim para Psicoterapia/Medicação - Sim para PICS). Os participantes responderam a um questionário sociodemográfico e ao Questionário de Saúde do Paciente-9. Utilizamos três categorias de depressão: sem depressão (pontuação ≤9), depressão leve (pontuação 10-14) e moderada/grave (≥15). A regressão logística multinomial estimou odds ratios brutas e ajustadas e intervalos de confiança de 95%. Entre os participantes que relataram usar pelo menos um tipo de PICS, 3,2% e 7,0% usaram PICS exclusivamente ou associado a tratamentos convencionais, respectivamente. Quanto maior a intensidade dos sintomas depressivos, menor a chance de usar PICS exclusivamente. No Brasil somente apenas uma minoria de pessoas deprimidas usa PICS exclusivamente.

Palavras-chave:
Medicina integrativa; Medicina complementar; Depressão; Terapêutica; Estudo transversal

Resumen

Muchos pacientes deprimidos optan por Prácticas Integrativas Complementarias (PICS). Nuestro objetivo es evaluar si existe asociación entre la gravedad de los síntomas depresivos y el uso de PICS. Estudio transversal utilizando datos de la Encuesta Nacional por Muestra de Hogares (PNS, 2019), un estudio de base poblacional. Una muestra de 4792 participantes (15-107 años) que informaron tratamiento actual para la depresión se clasificó en 3 grupos: Grupo 1 (N = 4307, Sí a la psicoterapia/medicación - No a PICS); Grupo 2 (N=148, Sí a PICS - No a Psicoterapia/Medicación) y Grupo 3 (N=337, Sí a Psicoterapia/Medicación - Sí a PICS). Los participantes respondieron a un cuestionario sociodemográfico y al Cuestionario de Salud del Paciente-9. Utilizamos tres categorías de depresión: sin depresión (puntuación ≤9), depresión leve (puntuación 10-14) y moderada/grave (≥15). La regresión logística multinomial estimó los odds ratios crudos y ajustados y los intervalos de confianza del 95%. Entre los participantes que informaron usar al menos un tipo de PICS, el 3,2% y el 7,0% utilizaron PICS exclusivamente o asociado con tratamientos convencionales, respectivamente. Cuanto mayor sea la intensidad de los síntomas depresivos, menor será la posibilidad de utilizar PICS exclusivamente. En Brasil, sólo una minoría de personas deprimidas utiliza PICS exclusivamente.

Palabras clave:
Medicina integrativa; Medicina complementaria; Depresión; Terapia; Estudio transversal

Introduction

Depression is the most common mental illness in the world¹ with around 280 million people affected. From 1990 to 2017, there was an increase of almost 50% in cases of depression worldwide², worsened recently by the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures³. In Brazil, in 2019, the prevalence of depression among the population aged 18 or older was 10%, which means an increase of 36% compared to 2013⁴. According to data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD-2017), major depressive disorder ranks 4th as the leading cause of years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years. The recent increase in the number of people with disabilities due to depression will probably result in increased spending to fund prevention and treatment programs⁵. Depressive disorders have an important impact on several outcomes, such as quality of life, increased morbidity, suicide risk and mortality^6-8.

Psychotherapies and pharmacological therapies are effective in the treatment of adult depression⁹. Moreover, different classes of antidepressants, such as serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants are proven to be effective in managing depression¹⁰. Nevertheless, the acceptability of antidepressants may be lower due to side effects, or because many patients prefer psychotherapy over pharmacotherapy^11,12. Other reasons why depressed people avoid mental health treatments are fear, misinformation and uncertainty about the treatment’s effectiveness. Therefore, many patients with depression symptoms may opt for integrative and complementary treatments. Complementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) has been largely defined as therapies that coexist alongside conventional biomedicine. CIM therapies that are used instead of conventional medicine are known as “alternative” medicines. CIM therapies used alongside conventional medicine are said to be “complementary”. “Integrative medicine” results from the thoughtful incorporation of concepts, values, and practices from integrative, complementary, and conventional medicines¹³. Since 2018, 170 WHO member states have acknowledged their use of CIM, and 97 of these countries have a national policy regarding CIM therapies¹⁴. In Brazil, Integrative and Complementary Practices were regulated and implemented in the Unified Health System (SUS, in its Brazilian acronym) in 2006. A recent population data study reported that 5.3% of the population use different types of CIM, with medicinal plants and phytotherapy (57,2%), acupuncture (26,3%) and homeopathy (17.0%) being the most frequently used¹⁵. Nevertheless, there are limited data about their use for treating depression in Brazil. In contrast, in the US, CIM therapies have been largely used among those with severe depression¹⁶ and this use has been increasing worldwide. Specifically, depressed patients are more likely to seek and use CIM therapies than those with other health conditions^17-19. Evidence has also shown that several types of CIM have been used concurrently with conventional medications for the treatment of depression. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether the intensity of depression varies according to the type of treatment, especially among those patients that opted to use CIM exclusively. We hypothesized that the higher the severity of depressive symptoms the lower the chance of treatment with CIM. Finally, it is relevant to establish this relationship considering the conflicting evidence about the efficacy of CIM for the treatment of depression^20,21.

The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether there is an association between the severity of symptoms and CIM use in the treatment of depression among a population-based sample of Brazilians.

Material and methods

Design and sample

We used data from the Brazilian National Health Survey (PNS) of 2019, a cross-sectional study that comprised a representative sample of residents in private households in Brazil. The sample studied by the PNS is a sub-sample of the Master Sample of the Integrated Household Survey System from IBGE, whose geographic coverage is comprised by the census sector from the Geographic Operational Base of the Demographic Census 2010, except for those with very small numbers of households and special sectors such as barracks and long-term institutions. The sample size was calculated to enable the estimation of precise prevalence rates and 95% confidence interval for several outcomes such as diabetes, hypertension, depression, violence, use of health services, having health insurance, tobacco use disorder, practice of physical activities and alcohol consumption, taking into account also the clustered sample in multiple stages. The objective of PNS 2019 was to provide the country with information on the health determinants and needs of the Brazilian population²². The questionnaire had three parts, covering: (i) characteristics of the household; (ii) all residents of the household, focusing on collecting socioeconomic and health information; and (iii) the selected resident (15 years or older) for whom lifestyle, chronic disease and violence, among other topics were investigated. For the analysis of this study, we selected individuals between 15 and 107 years old who have answered the questionnaire of the Selected Resident of the PNS (N=8,332). The PNS2019 response rate was 91.9%.

Covariates

On the basis of the PNS 2019 questionnaire data, the following sociodemographic factors were assessed: age (15/19, 20/34,35/49 years of age); self-reported skin color (White or non-white); living with a partner (Yes or No); years of schooling (0-8, 9-11, >11); having a private medical plan (Yes or No), living area (Urban or Rural); country regions (South/Southeast or North/Northeast/Midwest) and minimum wage per person in the family (up to ½, ½-1, 1-2, >2). Health related characteristics evaluated were self-perception of health status (“Very good/Good/Fair; Poor/Very Poor) and depression severity that was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). This screening tool assesses the presence and intensity of each of the nine items in the 2 weeks preceding the interview. The scores range from 0 (“not once”) to 3 (“almost every day”), and the total score can range from 0 to 27. We used three categories of depression: no depression (score≤9), mild depression (score 10-14) and moderate/severe depression (score≥15). PHQ-9 score≥10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression²³. The reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, for the PHQ-9 total score was 0.84.

Main outcome variable

The main outcome variable was current type of treatment for depression. The following questions from PNS 2019 were used for the assessment of type of treatment for depression: “Which type of treatments for depression are you currently using: psychotherapy, medications or any CIM (acupuncture, homeopathy, medicinal plants and phytotherapy, auriculotherapy, meditation, yoga, tai chi chuang and any other)?. Participants who answered “No” for all of the above treatments were excluded from the analysis (N=3.540) and participants who reported “Yes” for any kind of treatment were classified into 3 groups: group 1 (Yes for Psychotherapy/Medication - No for CIM), group 2 (Yes for CIM - No for Psychotherapy/Medication), group 3 (Yes for Psychotherapy/ Medication - Yes for CIM).

Statistical analysis

Exposure variables were summarized and categorized. Multinomial logistic regression was performed using type of depression treatment as a categorical outcome variable and severity of depression as the primary independent variable of interest. We examined the effects of severity of depression on type of depression treatment accounting for potential confounders. Covariates were identified a priori based on previous research on type of depression treatment and severity of depression. The adjusted multivariate model included all covariates which showed a p level <0.20 in the bivariate analysis. We estimated crude and adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) using STATA 16 software and the complexity of the sample was taken into account using the svy command for statistical analysis. We estimated predicted probabilities of type of treatment for depression according to the severity of depression using the predictive margins command in STATA, after running the multivariate multinomial logistic regression model²⁴. All estimates were weighted to account for PNS-2019 complex survey design and to make the estimates nationally representative (weighted pooled N=155,020,634).

Ethical Aspect

Ethics approval and consent to participate The National Survey of Health (PNS-2019) was approved by the National Health Ethics Committee (CONEP) (process No. 3.529.376). Participation was voluntary and participants signed a consent form. The questionnaire could be answered in whole or in part. The PNS dataset is publicly available on the IBGE website without information that could identify individuals.

Results

Of the 8.332 participants (15 to 107 years old) in the PNS 2019 data set who reported a current treatment for depression, 3.540 reported not using any type of treatment and were excluded, leaving a sample of 4.792 participants. Among these there were 4.307 participants in group 1 (Yes for Psychotherapy/Medication - No for CIM), 148, in group 2 (Yes for CIM - No for Psychotherapy/Medication), and 337, in group 3 (Yes for Psychotherapy/ Medication - Yes for CIM).

The characteristics of these 4,792 participants with complete information about depression treatment were: 52.0% female, 42.9% were White, 58.4% reported living with someone, and 22.9% had >59 years of age. The mean age was 43.3 (SD=3.1; range 15 to 107). In relation to socioeconomic status, 43.1% had between 0 to 8 years of education and almost half (47.7%) had a family income of >1 minimum wage (270 US Dollars) per person. Nearly one fourth (26.6%) of participants had a private health plan. Most of the participants lived in South/Southeast region of the country (57.4%) and in the urban area (85.9%). Regarding the health characteristics, 5.2% reported a “poor or very poor” perception of health status. The prevalence of type of treatment for depression varied between 10.2% for CIM to 96.8% for medication/ psychotherapy (Table 1). Characteristics of participants according to groups of treatment for depression are also presented at Table 1. Among participants (n=485) who reported use of at least one type of CIM, 3.2% (95%CI 2.4% - 4.2%) and 7.0% (95%CI 5.8% - 8.4%) used CIM isolatedly or associated with conventional treatments, respectively. From these 485 participants who answered “yes” to the use of CIM for depression treatment, 174 (35.9%) participants did not specify which CIM was used (i.e., those participants had missing values on the subsequent questions regarding the types of CIM treatments). The most frequent CIM used (n=311, 64.1%) were medical plants (61 in Group 2 and 38 Group 3), acupuncture (32 in Group 2 and 29 Group 3), meditation (40 in Group 1 and 12 Group 3) and homeopathy (32 in Group1 and 12 Group 3). A score of types of CIM was created, ranging from 0 to 9 types of CIM treatments, with a mean (SD)=2.5 (1.7) of CIM used among the 311 participants. The majority of participants reported the use of one type of CIM (n=119, 24.5%), followed by 2 types of CIM (n=60, 12.4%), and three types of CIM (n=46, 9.5%). A total of 85 participants (27.3%) reported the current use of 4 or more types of CIM.

Table 1
Characteristics of participants according to groups of treatment for depression in the National Health Survey, Brazil 2019.

Type of treatment		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Total
		Prevalence (%) 95%CI	Prevalence (%) 95%CI	Prevalence (%) 95%CI	Prevalence (%) 95%CI
Gender
	Female	89.2 (87.8-90.6)	2.8 (2.2-3.5)	7.8 (6.6-9.2)	52.0 (51.7-52.6)
	Male	90.3 (86.7-93.0)	3.6 (2.2-5.8)	5.9 (3.9-9.0)	48.0 (47.3-48.5)
Age (years)
	15/19	89.0 (86.5-91.1)	2.7 (1.8-4.2)	8.1 (6.3-10.3)	21.2 (20.6-21.6)
	30/39	88.7 (84.7-91.8)	4.6 (2.4-8.8)	6.5 (4.7-8.9)	19.1 (18.6-19.5)
	40/49	88.6 (85.2-91.3)	3.5 (2.3-5.4)	7.7 (5.4-10.8)	18.9 (18.3-19.3)
	50/59	88.8 (82.2-93.2)	3.2 (1.7-5.7)	7.9 (4.0-14.)	17.9 (17.4-18.4)
	60/max	93.0 (90.9-94.6)	1.7 (1.1-2.7)	5.2 (3.7-7.1)	22.9 (22.4-23.3)
Self-referred skin colour
	White	89.6 (87.4-91.4)	3.1 (1.9-5.0)	7.2 (5.9-8.6)	42.9 (42.1-43.6)
	Non-White	89.8 (87.3-91.9)	3.2 (2.4-4.2)	6.8 (4.9-9.4)	57.1 (56.3-57.8)
Years of Schooling
	0-8	95.6 (94.2-96.6)	1.5 (1.0-2.1)	2.8 (1.9-4.1)	43.1 (42.4-43.8)
	9-11	88.8 (84.8-91.9)	2.6 (1.71-4.1)	8.4 (5.6-12.5)	37.1 (36.5-37.6)
	>11	81.9 (78.5-84.9)	6.3 (4.1-9.5)	11.7 (9.6-14.2)	19.8 (19.0-20.4)
Family income (quartiles)
	Up to ½	93.6 (91.7-95.2)	1.9 (1.3-2.8)	4.3 (1.3-2.8)	23.0 (22.4-23.5)
	½-1	94.1 (92.3-95.5)	1.8 (1.1-2.8)	4.0 (2.8-5.5)	29.3 (28.6-29.8)
	1-2	87.9 (82.9-91.6)	3.4 (2.2-5.3)	8.5 (5.2-13.6)	27.6 (26.9-28.1)
	>2	84.2 (80.5-87.3)	5.2 (3.1-8.5)	10.5 (8.3-13.1)	20.1 (19.4-20.8)
Private health insurance
	No	91.6 (89.9-93.1)	3.0 (2.1-4.4)	5.2 (4.2-6.5)	73.4 (72.6-74.2)
	Yes	86.2 (82.4-89.3)	3.4 (2.3-5.0)	10.2 (7.4-14.0)	26.6 (25.7-27.3)
Area
	Urban	96.1 (93.5-97.7)	1.8 (0.7-4.5)	2.0 (1.1-3.5)	14.1 (13.7-14.4)
	Rural	88.8 (86.9-90.5)	3.4 (2.5-4.5)	7.7 (6.3-9.3)	85.9 (85.5-86.2)
Region
	South/Southeast	89.3 (86.7-91.4)	2.6 (1.6-4.4)	7.9 (6.0-10.2)	57.4 (56.8-57.9)
	North/Central	90.3 (88.8-91.5)	4.0 (3.2-4.8)	5.6 (4.6-6.8)	42.6 (41.0-42.0)
Live with partner
	Yes	89.3 (86.4-91.7)	3.4 (2.2-5.2)	7.1 (5.2-9.6)	58.4 (56.8-57.9)
	No	90.2 (88.6-91.6)	2.8 (2.1-3.7)	6.8 (5.7-8.2)	41.6 (41.0-42.0)
Perception of health status
	Poor/Very poor	92.6 (89.2-95.0)	0.9 (0.5-1.6)	6.3 (4.0-9.8)	5.3 (5.0-5.5)
	Good/Very good/Fair	89.1 (87.2-90.8)	3.6 (2.7-4.8)	7.1 (5.7-8.8)	94.7 (94.4-94.9)
PHQ-9 score
	0-9	89.1 (87.2-90.6)	4.1 (3.2-5.3)	6.6 (5.5-8.0)	90.2 (89.8-90.5)
	10-14	90.3 (86.1-93.3)	3.2 (1.3-7.6)	6.3 (4.4-9.0)	6.1 (5.8-6.4)
	>14	90.4 (85.1-94.0)	0.9 (0.6-1.5)	8.5 (5.0-14.0)	3.7 (3.4-3.8)
Psychotherapy/Medication
	No	0	0	0	3.2 (2.4-4.2)
	Yes	92.8 (91.2-93.9)	0	7.2 (6.0-8.7)	96.8 (95.7-97.5)
CIM for depression
	No	0	0	0	89.8 (88.0-91.2)
	Yes	0	31.3 (24.6 -38.8)	68.7 (61.1-75.3)	10.2 (8.7-11.9)

• Source: Authors.

In the bivariate analysis, keeping group 1 as the reference, the following variables were associated with an increased OR of treatment in group 2 (CIM use without medication or psychotherapy): 9-11 (OR:1.86; 1.04-3.33) and >11 (OR: 4.78; 2.74-8.33) years of schooling; 1-2 (OR: 1.91; 1.04-3.49) and >2 (OR: 2.98; 1.54-5.79) minimum wages per person of family income and very good/good/fair perception of health status (OR: 3.95;2.10-7.30). A decreased OR of treatment in Group 2 was found with the highest PHQ-9 score (>14): OR:0.22; 0.13-0.38. In comparison with group 1, the following variables were associated with an increased OR of treatment in group 3 (CIM use with or without medication or psychotherapy): 9-11 (OR: 3.20;1.79-5.71) and >11 (OR: 4.80;3.07-7.49) years of schooling; 1-2 (OR: 2.08;1.09-3.98) and >2 (OR: 2.67;1.54-5.79) minimum wages per person of family income; having a private health insurance (OR: 2.07;1.35-3.19) and living in a rural area (OR: 4.07;2.21-7.49). A decreased OR of treatment in Group 3 was found with the variable living in the North/Central region of the country (OR:0.70;0.49-1.00). (Table 2).

Table 2
The crude and adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of use of type of treatment for depression according to explanatory variables in the National Health Survey, Brazil 2019.

		Bivariate		Multivariatea
		Group 2	Group 3	Group 2	Group 3
		Crude OR (95%CI)	Crude OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)
Gender		p=0.31		-	-
	Female	1	1	-	-
	Male	1.29 (0.74-2.23)	0.75 (0.46-1.22)	-	-
Age (years)		p=0.09		p=0.62	p=0.90
	15/19	1	1	1	1
	30/39	1.69 (0.74-3.86)	0.80 (0.52-1.24)	1.62 (0.78-3.37)	0.83 (0.53-1.30)
	40/49	1.30 (0.69-2.43)	0.95 (0.59-1.52)	1.45 (0.77-2.71)	1.06 (0.64-1.76)
	50/59	1.16 (0.54-2.46)	0.97 (0.46-2.05)	1.41 (0.61-3.27	1.19 (0.56-2.52)
	60/max	0.60 (0.32-1.13)	0.61 (0.39-0.94)	0.82(0.43-1.59)	0.92 (0.51-1.63)
Self-referred skin colour		p=0.91		-	-
	White	1	1	-	-
	Non-White	1.02 (0.57-1.80)	0.94 (0.64-1.39)	-	-
Years of Schooling		p<0.001		p<0.001	p<0.001
	0-8	1	1	1	1
	9-11	1.86 (1.04-3.33)	3.20 (1.79-5.71)	1.51 (0.77-2.93)	2.87 (1.66-4.97)
	>11	4.78 (2.74-8.33)	4.80 (3.07-7.49)	3.40 (1.81-6.37)	3.67 (2.08-6.47)
Family income (quartile)		p<0.001		p=0.065	p=0.23
	Up to ½	1	1	1	1
	½-1	0.95 (0.51-1.74)	0.91 (0.55-1.50)	0.93 (0.51-1.72	0.77 (0.46-1.29
	1-2	1.91 (1.04-3.49)	2.08 (1.09-3.98)	1.87 (1.02-3.41)	1.40 (0.83-2.38)
	>2	2.98 (1.54-5.79)	2.67 (1.54-5.79)	2.30 (0.86-6.14)	1.30 (0.69-2.46)
Private health insurance		p=0.003		p=0.162	p=0.67
	No	1	1	1	1
	Yes	1.19 (0.68-2.07)	2.07 (1.35-3.19)	0.48 (0.16-1.41)	1.16 (0.67-1.98)
Area		p<0.001		p=0.49	p=0.005
	Urban	1	1	1	1
	Rural	2.04 (0.75-5.56)	4.07 (2.21-7.49)	1.49 (0.47-4.66)	2.26 (1.23-4.17)
Region		p=0.048		p=0.015	p=0.58
	South/Southeast	1	1	1	1
	North/Central	1.48 (0.84-2.60)	0.70 (0.49-1.00)	1.98 (1.1-3.29)	0.90 (0.64-1.27)
Live with partner		p = 0.73		-	-
	Yes	1	1	-	-
	No	1.26 (0.75-2.11)	1.07 (0.69-1.67)	-	-
Perception of health status		p<0.001		p=0.018	p=0.61
	Poor/Very poor	1	1	1	1
	Good/Very good/Fair	3.95 (2.10-7.30)	1.17 (0.69-1.98)	2.27 (1.16-4.46)	0.74 (0.39-1.38)
PHQ-9 score		p<0.001		p=0.013	p=0.43
	0-9	1	1	1	1
	10-14	0.78 (0.31-1.98)	0.93 (0.59-1.46)	0.88 (0.38-2.05)	0.93 (0.58-1.47)
	>14	0.22 (0.13-0.38)	1.26 (0.70-2.25)	0.28 (0.16-0.49)	0.68 (0.23-2.39)

• ^aAdjusted for all variables except partened status, gender, self-referred skin colour.
• Source: Authors.

In the multivariate analysis the following variables were significantly associated with type of treatment in group 2: >11 years of schooling (OR:3.40;1.81-6.37); 1-2 minimum wage per person (OR: 1.87; 1.02-3.41), living in the North/Central region of the country (OR:1.98;1.10-3.29), having a very good, good, fair perception of health status (OR: 2.27;0.1.16-4.46) and PHQ-9 score of >14 (OR: 0.28; 0.16-0.49). In relation to group 3, the following variables were significant with type of treatment: 9-11 (OR: 2.87; 1.66-4.97) and >11 (OR: 3.67;2.08-6.47) years of schooling and living in a rural area (OR: 2.26; 1.23-4.17) (Table 2). Figure 1 shows the predicted probability of type of treatment for depression according to the depression severity measured by PHQ-9. The probability of belonging to the group 1 is highest among all groups regardless the depressive severity. There is no difference between the probability of belonging to the group 2 and group 3 when there is no depression or the depressive symptoms are mild. When the depressive symptoms are moderate or severe, the probability of belonging to the group 3 is slightly higher (predicted probability =0.086, 95%CI 0.040-0.133) when compared to belonging to the group 2 (predicted probability =0.010, 95%CI 0.005-0.014).

Figure 1
Predicted probability for type of treatment for depression according to the severity of depression.

Discussion

The present study’s main findings confirm that approximately 10% of the Brazilian population uses CIM for the treatment of depression (exclusively or in association with conventional therapies) and the inverse association between the severity of depression and exclusive CIM use even after controlling for covariates. The higher the intensity of depressive symptoms the lower the chance of using CIM exclusively. In comparison with participants who use conventional therapies, participants with moderate/severe depression are almost 4 times less likely to use CIM exclusively.

The prevalence of CIM use among depressed patients varied significantly between studies. A study carried out in Turkey showed that 22.2% of patients with mental disorders were using some form of CIM for treating depression (18.7%)²⁵. In the US, complementary and alternative medicines were used among 40% of adults with moderate depression and anxiety disorder²⁶. In contrast, a study assessed national estimates for the use of practitioner-based complementary treatments among 16,038 US residents with mental conditions. They reported that 4.5% of participants were using CIM to treat a mental condition²⁷. De Jonge et al.²⁸ evaluated CIM use for treating mental health problems among adults in 25 countries (N=138,801), finding that an estimated 3.6% of participants with a past 12-month mental disorder reported having contact with a CIM therapy, which was two times higher in high-income countries (4.6%) than in low and middle-income countries (2.3%)²⁸. A critical review found that CIM use among sufferers of depressive disorders appears to be approximately in the range of 10-30%¹⁸. Another review reported a prevalence range of CIM use among depressed patients between 17.8% to 54%¹⁹. In our study, the lower prevalence of CIM use (10.7%) in comparison with other countries, can be explained by cultural beliefs, population characteristics, differences in the depression assessment and the type of CIM used for the treatment of depression that has been assessed in the PNS. Of note, a few CIM practices employed in other countries such as prayer, hypnotherapy and spiritual healing have not been evaluated in our study. Regardless differences between studies, the exclusive use of CIM for depression treatment is uncommon in the majority of publications²⁹.

The association between the severity of depressive symptoms and the lower likelihood of using CIM exclusively can be explained. Firstly, patients with more severe symptomatology of depression may have problems adhering to CIM treatments as they require more sessions/appointments than conventional therapy with psychotropic medications. Secondly, national studies reported that health professionals are unaware of and/or have little experience with CIM practices³⁰. The majority of healthcare providers, including Family Health Strategy community physicians, are unaware of the National Policy on Complementary and Integrative Practices^31,32. Furthermore, there is great distrust among them about the effectiveness of the CIM, which also occurs in other countries. Healthcare providers showed different attitudes towards these practices, ranging from encouragement to ignorance and even opposition to CIM therapies³². In the US, there is a lack of CIM training and education for medical students³³. Thirdly, patients’ knowledge and perceptions about CIM use for managing depression may also play a role. It is likely that the controversy about overall CIM efficacy may hamper the possibility of the patient accepting the use of these types of treatment as the primary or even complementary therapy. The belief in the efficacy of treatment (either CIM or conventional) has been shown to influence the pattern of choice exhibited by the participants³⁴.

Reviewing the literature, we found that studies yielded conflicting evidence about the association between depression intensity and CIM use. In Norway, Hansen and Kristoffersen³⁵ studied 1,685 participants who reported suffering from anxiety and/or depression and found no association between the receiving treatment with a CIM therapy and the degree of symptomatology³⁵. Parslow and Jorm²⁹ reached the same conclusion while comparing two groups of adults that experienced depressive and anxiety symptoms or other mental health problems in the past month: one group used CIMs only and the other group used prescription medications only²⁹. In the US, Druss and Rosenheck²⁷ suggested that people reporting transient stress or adjustment disorders rather than chronic and serious conditions were most likely to seek complementary therapies to treat their mental condition. They concluded that CIM treatment is likely to be a substitute for conventional care, particularly in patients with moderate disease²⁷. In contrast to the above results, a review challenges the idea that CIM contacts are more often used for mild complaints and emphasizes that CIM is a complement to conventional treatment. De Jonge et al.²⁸ found that the contact of participants with CIM increased with increasing mental disorder severity²⁸. Of note, this review included one Brazilian study carried out in São Paulo, the most developed city in the country, with the best structure for mental care in the country, and used the frequency of visits to a CIM provider as a proxy of CIM treatment. Moreover, this Brazilian study was carried out in 2005 when the CIM practices were not included in Brazilian national health policies. Differently, the present study used a population-based sample and evaluated, directly, the effectiveness of CIM therapies for treating depression. Overall, our data are in line with studies that consider CIM as an option for treating mild or transient depression alongside conventional treatments while the exclusive use of CIM for treating mental health problems is uncommon¹⁹.

A broader view of using CIM to treat depression has been suggested in a study that employed an interesting approach. Berna et al conducted a web-based study including 1,807 participants who were asked to imagine that they had a particular chronic illness based on clinical vignettes (depression was one of them). Participants were invited to rate four determined patterns of treatment: strictly conventional, weak or strong complementary, and alternative. The main result showed that CIM was selected as a complementary treatment option by more than 95% of people who hypothetically faced chronic illness, however, different factors, such as employment status, the severity of illness, age and perceived distress, social stigma and treatability of the illness driven this preference. They concluded that CIM use varied according to the kind of illness faced by the person or by the severity of this illness, which means that CIM exclusive use or alongside conventional care for the treatment of depression depends on the circumstances. Overall, the preference for the alternative option was more frequent for illnesses perceived as less distressful and with low levels of symptoms and low frequency of relapse³⁶.

Our data have clinical implications. First, CIM treatments are not free of side effects and there should be certain care regarding possible undesirable interactions between conventional and CIM treatments. A retrospective analysis of the Medicare beneficiary population showed that concurrent use of conventional and CIM treatments was common (14.4%) and that 5.8% of the sample were taking combinations considered to have a significant risk of causing an adverse interaction³⁷. Therefore, clinicians not specialized in CIM therapies should know if their patients are also receiving CIM treatments for mental health problems.

The present study also has some limitations. First of all, the cross-sectional design of our study does not allow the establishment of temporal causality and therefore reverse causality cannot be excluded. Secondly, the assessment of types of therapy for depression including CIM was made with a single direct question. Specifically, the question about CIM treatments included different types of therapies whose efficacies may vary enormously. Unfortunately, we do not have data from medical charts to confirm the type of CIM used. On the other hand, the evaluation of the current use of CIM for depression makes recall or misinformation unlikely. Thirdly, our analysis is based on a small sample of participants who reported exclusive use of CIM and, therefore, a lack of power for detecting differences between groups of comparison is expected.

One strength of our study is the use of data from a large national survey that used a complex sampling method. Participants in the PNS 2019 are from different socioeconomic statuses with access to private or public healthcare. Therefore, we believe that our findings can be generalized to the Brazilian population.

Conclusions

There is a growing interest in alternative/natural treatments in many countries, including for the treatment of depression. Additionally, there is evidence that issues related to the efficacy of CIM for treating depression are not an obstacle for certain groups of patients. Overall, these aspects support the relevance to evaluate the use of CIM for treating depression. Our data showed that, in Brazil, only a minority of depressed people use CIM exclusively. Moreover, they showed a lower intensity of depressive symptoms. Future studies with quantitative and qualitative assessments should evaluate prospectively the relationship between the severity of the depressive symptoms with the use of CIM for treatment, instead of or alongside conventional medication. An integration of CIM with conventional therapies for the treatment of mental health problems has clinical and public health implications and has received support from the WHO³⁸.

References

• ¹ World Health Organization (WHO). Depressive disorder (depression) [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 set 8]. Avaliable from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression
  » https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression
• ² Liu Q, He H, Yang J, Feng X, Zhao F, Lyu J. Changes in the global burden of depression from 1990 to 2017: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease study. J Psychiatr Res 2020; 126:134-140.
• ³ Collaborators COVID-MD. Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2021; 398(10312):1700-1712.
• ⁴ Mrejen M, Rocha R. Evolution and inequalities in depression prevalence and the treatment gap in Brazil: a decomposition analysis [Internet]. IEPS WP 14. 2021 [cited 2023 set 8]. Avaliable from: https://ieps.org. br/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/IEPS_WP14.pdf
  » https://ieps.org. br/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/IEPS_WP14.pdf
• ⁵ Bonadiman CSC, Malta DC, Passos VMA, Naghavi M, Melo APS. Depressive disorders in Brazil: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Popul Health Metr 2020; 18(Supl. 1):6.
• ⁶ Cuijpers P, Stringaris A, Wolpert M. Treatment outcomes for depression: challenges and opportunities. Lancet Psychiatry 2020; 7(11):925-927.
• ⁷ Malhi GS, Mann JJ. Depression. Lancet 2018; 392(10161):2299-2312.
• ⁸ Bachmann S. Epidemiology of Suicide and the Psychiatric Perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(7):1425.
• ⁹ Chisholm D, Sweeny K, Sheehan P, Rasmussen B, Smit F, Cuijpers P, Saxena S. Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: a global return on investment analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3(5):415-424.
• ¹⁰ Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y, Leucht S, Ruhe HG, Turner EH, Higgins JPT, Egger M, Takeshima N, Hayasaka Y, Imai H, Shinohara K, Tajika A, Ioannidis JPA, Geddes JR. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet 2018; 391(10128):1357-1366.
• ¹¹ Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Morgan LC, Thaler K, Lux L, Van Noord M, Mager U, Thieda P, Gaynes BN, Wilkins T, Strobelberger M, Lloyd S, Reichenpfader U, Lohr KN. Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: an updated meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155(11):772-785.
• ¹² McHugh RK, Whitton SW, Peckham AD, Welge JA, Otto MW. Patient preference for psychological vs pharmacologic treatment of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analytic review. J Clin Psychiatry 2013; 74(6):595-602.
• ¹³ Barrett B, Marchand L, Scheder J, Plane MB, Maberry R, Appelbaum D, Rakel D, Rabago D. Themes of holism, empowerment, access, and legitimacy define complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in relation to conventional biomedicine. J Altern Complement Med 2003; 9(6):937-947.
• ¹⁴ World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Global Report On Traditional and ComplementaryMedicine 2019. Geneva: WHO; 2019.
• ¹⁵ Faisal-Cury A, Rodrigues DMD. Prevalence and associated factors with traditional, complementary and integrative medicine in Brazil: A population-based study. Eur J Integr Med 2022; 53:102146.
• ¹⁶ Kessler RC, Soukup J, Davis RB, Foster DF, Wilkey SA, Rompay MI, Eisenberg DM. The use of complementary and alternative therapies to treat anxiety and depression in the United States. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158(2):289-294.
• ¹⁷ Freeman MP, Fava M, Lake J, Trivedi MH, Wisner KL, Mischoulon D. Complementary and alternative medicine in major depressive disorder: the American Psychiatric Association Task Force report. J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71(6):669-681.
• ¹⁸ Unützer J, Klap R, Sturm R, Young AS, Marmon T, Shatkin J, Wells KB. Mental disorders and the use of alternative medicine: results from a national survey. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157(11):1851-1857.
• ¹⁹ Solomon D, Adams J. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in adults with depressive disorders. A critical integrative review. J Affect Disord 2015; 179:101-113.
• ²⁰ Haller H, Anheyer D, Cramer H, Dobos G. Complementary therapies for clinical depression: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2019; 9(8):e028527.
• ²¹ Ravindran AV, da Silva TL. Complementary and alternative therapies as add-on to pharmacotherapy for mood and anxiety disorders: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 2013; 150(3):707-719.
• ²² Stopa SR, Szwarcwald CL, Oliveira MM, Gouvea ECDP, Vieira MLFP, Freitas MPS, Sardinha LMV, Macário EM. National Health Survey 2019: history, methods and perspectives. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2020; 29(5):e2020315.
• ²³ Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16(9):606-613.
• ²⁴ Williams R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J 2012; 12(2):308-331.
• ²⁵ Bahceci B, Bagcioglu E, Ozturk A, Bulbul F, Sahiner IV, Tuncer BE, Guzel HI, Hocaoglu C. Complementary and alternative medicine use in patients with mental disorders in Turkey. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2013; 19(4):221-226.
• ²⁶ Rhee TG, Evans RL, McAlpine DD, Johnson PJ. Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in US Adults With Moderate Mental Distress. J Prim Care Community Health 2017; 8(2):43-54.
• ²⁷ Druss BG, Rosenheck RA. Use of practitioner-based complementary therapies by persons reporting mental conditions in the United States. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57(7):708-714.
• ²⁸ Jonge P, Wardenaar KJ, Hoenders HR, Evans-Lacko S, Kovess-Masfety V, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Al-Hamzawi A, Alonso J, Andrade LH, Benjet C, Bromet EJ, Bruffaerts R, Bunting B, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, Dinolova RV, Florescu S, de Girolamo G, Gureje O, Haro JM, Hu C, Huang Y, Karam EG, Karam G, Lee S, Lépine JP, Levinson D, Makanjuola V, Navarro-Mateu F, Pennell BE, Posada-Villa J, Scott K, Tachimori H, Williams D, Wojtyniak B, Kessler RC, Thornicroft G. Complementary and alternative medicine contacts by persons with mental disorders in 25 countries: results from the World Mental Health Surveys. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 2018; 27(6):552-567.
• ²⁹ Parslow RA, Jorm AF. Use of prescription medications and complementary and alternative medicines to treat depressive and anxiety symptoms: results from a community sample. J Affect Disord 2004; 82(1):77-84.
• ³⁰ Otani MA, Barros NF. The Integrative Medicine and the construction of a new health model. Cien Saude Colet 2011; 16(3):1801-1811.
• ³¹ Thiago SeC, Tesser CD. Family Health Strategy doctors and nurses' perceptions of complementary therapies. Rev Saude Publica 2011; 45(2):249-257.
• ³² Hart J. Complementary and alternative medicine use and initiatives in Europe, Alternative and Complementary Therapies 2018; 24(1):32-34.
• ³³ Cowen VS, Cyr V. Complementary and alternative medicine in US medical schools. Adv Med Educ Pract 2015; 6:113-117.
• ³⁴ Peltzer K, Pengpid S. Prevalence and Determinants of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Provider Use among Adults from 32 Countries. Chin J Integr Med 2018; 24(8):584-590.
• ³⁵ Hansen AH, Kristoffersen AE. The use of CAM providers and psychiatric outpatient services in people with anxiety/depression: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Altern Med 2016; 16(1):461.
• ³⁶ Berna F, Göritz AS, Mengin A, Evrard R, Kopferschmitt J, Moritz S. Alternative or complementary attitudes toward alternative and complementary medicines. BMC Complement Altern Med 2019; 19(1):83.
• ³⁷ Elmer GW, Lafferty WE, Tyree PT, Lind BK. Potential interactions between complementary/alternative products and conventional medicines in a Medicare population. Ann Pharmacother 2007; 41(10):1617-1624.
• ³⁸ World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2014-2023 [Internet]. [cited 2024 set 10]. Avalable from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096
  » https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096

• Data availability statement
  The data sources adopted in the research are indicated in the article’s body.

• Chief editors:
  Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo, Romeu Gomes, Antônio Augusto Moura da Silva, Vania de Matos Fonseca

Data availability

The data sources adopted in the research are indicated in the article’s body.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 May 2026
• Date of issue
  Mar 2026

History

• Received
  15 Aug 2024
• Accepted
  18 Feb 2025
• Published
  20 Feb 2025