Phytopharmaceutical practices of traditional health practitioners in Burkina Faso: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional health practitioners constitute an important part of the health care system in Burkina Faso, particularly in the supply of traditional herbal medicines. Quality and safety of these medicines rely heavily on practices employed during their traditional development. However, traditional phytopharmaceutical practices are poorly described in Burkina Faso. This study aimed to describe the phytopharmaceutical practices of traditional medicine practitioners in Burkina Faso. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive ethno-pharmaceutical study, conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2020, among traditional practitioners in four randomly selected health districts: Nongr-Massom (Centre region), Tenkodogo (Centre-East region), Diapaga (East region) and Dafra (Hauts-Bassins region). An anonymous semi-structured face-to-face questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic data and data on raw materials and finished products. RESULTS: Sixty-seven (67) traditional health practitioners, aged 56 years on average, including a majority of men (72%), participated in the study. Gathering of wild medicinal plants was the main source of raw materials acquisition (51.5%), which were usually leaves (32.3%). These raw materials were usually sun-dried (43.9%) and packaged mostly in plastic bags (37.2%). They were derived from 60 plant species belonging to 33 botanical families. Fabaceae was the most represented family (18.7%) and Khaya senegalensis Juss. (Meliaceae) the most cited plant species (5.2%). The finished products had an average shelf life of 17 months and were usually prepared as a decoction (31.7%) and administered most often orally (71.4%). Gastrointestinal disorders were the main predictable adverse events of the finished products (54%). CONCLUSION: This study showed that THPs have important knowledge in the use of medicinal plants, but several shortcomings are observed in their phytopharmaceutical and plant protection practices. Continuous improvement of these practices, through education and training of traditional health practitioners, is essential for the conservation of plant biodiversity and quality assurance of traditional herbal medicines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".