OBJECTIVEComplementary, alternative and traditional medicine (CATM) is a new field, as well as a promising area of study and practice in psychology. It is important to research the cultural context and meaning of CATM, including its definitions and examples, among different communities of psychology because CATM's use is dependent on how it is understood by the members. The aim of this pilot study is to provide an interpretation of the Indonesian psychology community's understanding of CATM through a qualitative approach.

METHODSOnline interviews with open-ended questions and purposive sampling were used. Participants were dominantly psychologists or lecturers in clinical psychology area. Ten males and 12 females with an average age of 28.0 ± 2.5 years voluntarily participated in this study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed and analysed by the two authors to ensure accuracy of interpretation.

RESULTSIt was found that there was no single meaning of CATM among the Indonesian community of psychology. Participants were not familiar enough with the terms and tended to use them with overlap. It can be suggested that "complementary medicine" and "alternative medicine" or "complementary-alternative medicine" combined provides more suitable terminology for use among Indonesian psychology community when communicating with other health care professionals.

CONCLUSIONThe understanding of the terms and examples of CATM were diverse and were often used interchangeably in the projects/interviews. It was also found that Indonesian psychologists required more education regarding CATM. In addition, future studies with more participants from various aspects of the psychology community should be conducted to capture a more representative sample.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and compare health-related quality of life (QoL) as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life–BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) among the Malaysian population, examining differences by sociodemographic characteristics including age, income, sex, ethnicity, educational level, and occupation. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 19,402 individuals collected as part of a health and demographic surveillance system survey conducted in the Segamat district of Malaysia in 2018–2019. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency were produced.Differences in QoL among demographic sub-groups were examined using the t-test and analysisof variance, while the correlations between the WHOQoL-BREF and EQ-5D were evaluated usingPearson correlation coefficients. Results: Based on complete case analysis (n = 19,129), the average scores for the 4 WHOQoLBREF domains were 28.2 (physical), 24.1 (psychological), 12.0 (social relationships), and 30.4 (environment). The percentages of participants not in full health for each EQ-5D dimension were 12.8% (mobility), 3.1% (self-care), 6.9% (usual activities), 20.9% (pain/discomfort), and 6.8% (anxiety/depression). Correlations between the 4 WHOQoL-BREF domains and the 5 EQ-5D dimensions were relatively weak, ranging from –0.06 (social relationships with self-care and pain/discomfort; p < 0.001) to –0.42 (physical with mobility; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although health-related QoL as measured by the WHOQoL-BREF and the EQ-5D are correlated, these 2 measures should not be considered interchangeable. The choice betweenthem should be guided by the specific research questions and the intended use of the data.