INTRODUCTION:

Ayurveda, the most archaic wisdom is alive in Indian traditions, since the inception of civilization to serve humanity with an aim to maintain and promote positive health through traditional medicine, dietary restrictions and regulated lifestyle. Ayurveda, is practiced and applied by Indians at large since centuries, is getting global today. It has two fold aims, first to preserve the health of the healthy person and second to cure or relieve the disease of an unhealthy.

Thus, ayurveda is basically more oriented toward the management of lifestyle disorders which are in prominence today due to varied reasons among society. It is a holistic concept that emphasis on synchronization and the conceptualization of health as a dynamic balance. Apart from a medical system, ayurveda teaches a way of life, a way of cooperating with nature and being in harmony with nature. According to the principle of Ayurveda, human being is an element of nature and whatsoever lies in nature, there is a reciprocal representation of allied elements in the body as well. Therefore living in accordance with nature and following the concept “Return to Nature” is the only key to preserve health during entire life. We all are familiar with the consequences whenever we have tried to go against the laws of nature.

Ayurveda is not simply a health care system to treat diseases but also a complete ideology,^2,14 an art of living that inspires to live a healthy life of own and helping other human beings to create harmony in daily life by using the methods of self-knowledge and self-care. Thus, ayurveda is the art, science and philosophy of life.²⁶ Such philosophical principles are written in sacred texts.

The major strength of traditional medicines is that it is accessible, acceptable and affordable. Ayurvedic medicines have exhibited efficiency in areas such as disease prevention, mental health, in treatment of non-communicable diseases and enhancement of the quality of life for patients living with chronic ailments. Besides that, ayurvedic medicine is widely used in anticipation, diagnosis, and for the treatments of various normal and chronic ailments as well.

SCOPE OF AYURVEDA:

Anterior:

Ayurveda is believed to be as old as the religion of Hinduism. Our tradition records a very long era when the whole of mankind was totally free from all physical diseases. Perhaps it was the only system existing in the Indian subcontinent till the medieval period, to fulfill all health care needs of people. It enjoyed an unquestionable support of the people and their rulers during medieval time. Moreover, the knowledge of ayurveda advanced a lot during this period, including development in terms of discovery of novel and more effective medicines. Hence, this era can be regarded as ‘The Golden Period’ of ayurveda.

Posterior:

As the civilization advances and disease pattern changes, the medical science also changes. If such an age ever returns, in which, human kind is free from diseases, all the other systems of medicine will lose their utility (as they all are centered to physical treatments of livelihood) but ayurveda will not because, at that time, ayurveda will start on treating mental illness. And if it too disappears, then there is a requisite for the treatment of innate diseases such as hunger, thirst, sleep and the cycle of birth and death.

RECURRENCE OF AYURVEDA IN 21^ST CENTURY:

Ayurveda was being side lined until few years back. It has gradually lost ground against the supremacy of modern medicine. The reasons for wide usage of modern medicine was feature of providing fast relief, short time span of treatment, tablet form of medicine, faster innovation, easy and more accessibility and good promotion. Due to these many positive aspects of modern medicines, it has steadily replaced Indian traditional system of medicine during 19^th century and first half of the 20^th century.

But recently, ayurvedic medicines which are also termed as traditional medicines, alternative medicines and complementary medicines elsewhere in the world have become a widespread form of medicine and therapy worldwide, believing that it contains natural ingredients and therefore is harmless.^8,13Because of its unique holistic pro nature approach and its safe and cost effective green pharmacy, in recent years ayurveda is drawing the concentration of seekers worldwide.

In past two decades, numerous factors have done escalating appeal to use traditional medicine throughout the world. Therefore, now a day, there is a revival of interest with traditional ayurvedic medicine due to the increasing insight on the health hazards linked with the indiscriminate use of allopathy medicines. Revamping focal point arrived when the Government of India recognized that, ayurvedic medicine and treatments could help in increasing access to health in the country, if properly regulated.

The 21st century began with a few remarks that helped to rediscover the lost links between ayurveda and modern science. Certain new models are also proposed to comprehend essential ayurvedic principles on grounds acceptable to the Western world. WHO estimates that about three-quarters of the world’s population presently use herbs and supplementary forms of traditional medicines to treat their diseases.^17,23

The current government of India, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been concentrating on lot of exertions to revitalize ayurvedic industry. In recent visits of Mr. Modi, he signed MOU with China and Mongolia, to create awareness about ayurvedic medicines on a global platform. Moreover, he has announced number of measures to prop up and boost ayurveda and ayurvedic medicines as a part of its national defensive health care policy by allocating Rs.5000 crore to the AYUSH Department, up compared to Rs. 1200 crore by the previous government.¹⁸

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

PATIENT’S OPINION FOR AYURVEDA:

Majority of people take ayurveda as an alternative, preventive therapy, substitute of western medicine or else, a last resort of treatment to recover from chronic ailments rather than considering it as a natural rejuvenating treatment and precautionary step to retain their health.

As far as knowledge about ayurveda among society is concerned, report by Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) put forward the fact that only few people can give any response to name a range of ayurvedic medicines except some handful of products like Chyawanprash, Guggulu, Triphala, Ashwagandha etc. People are familiar with famous ayurvedic drugs manufacturing companies such as Himalaya, Dabur, Baidyanath, Hamdard, Zandu, Patanjali etc. But, hardly any person is aware about the range of 200 to 1000 products produced by over 4000 manufacturers. It is very harsh on the part of prevailing awareness regarding ayurveda in public.

Due to modernization patient choose allopathy medicines for quick relief. According to ayurvedic practitioners, patient do not know ayurvedic medicine or ayurvedic life style to any further extent. Especially young generation seems to neglect traditional ayurvedic medicine. On the contrary, educated people are more interested in including ayurveda in daily lifestyle.

Generally, patients incline toward ayurvedic medicines to resolve chronic ailments and allopathy medicine for acute complaints. In 2010, one ‘Dipstick’ survey was done to determine consumer interest and preference. According to that report by Shailaja Chandra, the disease and conditions, in which ayurvedic medicines are being used in India, were almost similar throughout the country. Majority were chronic ailments such as skin diseases, joint pains, diabetes, liver disorder etc.¹

Apart from the type of ailment, social and cultural reasons, economic factors also persuade user behaviour. Financial factors are always ranked ahead of reasons such as reliance and confidence in the treatment, positive attitude, ease of access, and convenience and confidence in the choice of a traditional healer. For a distinguished class of the society, myth that the selection of method of treatment is based on the economic factor can be neglected, as some people seek ayurveda because they believe that ayurveda has less side effects compare to modern medicines.²¹

REQUISITE OF AYURVEDIC MEDICINES AND TREATMENTS:

Chronic diseases are also termed as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). One of the reasons for the increase of such disease is the success of modern medicine.¹² Longer life expectancy has increased due to allopathy medicine. This in turn has generated a state where, people now survive long enough to suffer from varied chronic diseases. Furthermore, globalization performs as an editing factor in terms of bringing vast changes in terms of lifestyle, diet, working hours and style etc.¹³

People require a different approach of health care than what is offered by modern medicine, in order to keep their lives away from chronic diseases. Holistic treatment focusing on both mind and body is required to remove such ailments and for that, ayurvedic treatment is the best option.³

SELECTION OF AYURVEDIC TREATMENT:

In most of the medical literature, it has been argued, that people selects ayurvedic treatments only when they have been incompetent to find assistance in modern treatments^4,20

Patients are essentially pushed towards the selection and use of alternative treatments due to their earlier negative experiences with modern medicines rather than, being pulled by their reliance in traditional medicines.⁹ Hope of finding relief from the existing ailment is the reason for trying out alternatives medicines and treatments. Or else, alternative patients seek non-medical health care because they are convinced that it is a better form of treatment for them.

Reasons for people's choice of alternative care may be faith in the optimistic value of alternative care, past ineffective experience with orthodox medicine, concern about the adverse side-effects of medical care, poor communication with patients and orthodox medical practitioners. Other factors mentioned by the patients in this study contain the compliance of alternative practitioners to discuss emotional factors and the chance to take an active position in their treatments. The study concludes that people decide to seek care from alternative practitioners based on a mixture of practical and ideological factors.²⁸

Another view point for the selection of ayurveda is that it is any day a safer option. According to one survey report of employees working in India’s leading metros (namely Ahmedabad, Delhi, Dehradun, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Chennai, Kerala, Karnataka, Pune, Chandigarh), under the aegis of Assocham regarding demand of homeopathic and ayurvedic medicines in metros, reveals that Ahmedabad city secured 6th rank in terms of use of ayurveda by surveyed employees while Delhi secured the first rank. As per Assocham’s report, more than 65 per cent of the respondents replied that ayurvedic medicines can treat them effectively and in comparison to the duplicate medicines and side effects of allopathic treatments. ²⁵

While some researchers argue that the motive behind people’s selection of alternative health care services is to experience a distinctive set of beliefs about ailment and its treatment and to preserve health which can be sometimes termed as an ‘alternative treatment ideology’. ^19,6,10,22

SELECTION OF PRACTITIONERS:

Medical practitioners can be defined broadly as those civilians who exclusively work for people of society and serve as connectors between health care providers and needed inhabitants in order to promote health of that cluster of society who are traditionally deficient in access to sufficient care.

Selection of practitioners is concerned to when and where to hunt for health care is a complex process. As several studies have confirmed, poor health does not always result in a visit to a health care practitioner. ^16,24,29,30 Many people wait before deciding about whom to consult for treatment and some never do seek help from the formal health care system.

In India, people have a wide choice of selection between different kinds of practitioners such as practitioners of Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Yoga and Naturopathy, Homeopathy and Allopathy medicines. Hence, the selection of practitioners by patients is dependent upon recommendations of others who are satisfied patients of that particular treatment. According to a study, 62% of the users of alternative medicines and treatments found out their practitioner through family members, friends, colleagues, read about them in alternative publications or from an alternative practitioner. Sometimes they may be referred by a general practitioner. 25% selects their practitioner because of their reputation. ¹⁵

ROLE OF PRACTITIONERS:

Practitioner plays vital role in order to increase the awareness and consumption of ayurvedic medicines and treatments among patients. History of traditional practitioners depicts that before the arrival of modern medicine in India, they have catered to all the health care requirements of the people in the twentieth century. With the gradual decline of ayurvedic practices, the number of practitioners also turned down. The existing number of ayurvedic practitioners in India is –As of March 2015, compare to 9 lakh allopathic doctors, there were only 3.99 lakh ayurvedic practitioners in India. And according to Shripad Naik, the country has 2,827 ayurvedic hospitals. ⁷

The fact about ayurveda is that 90% of the patients pronounced untreatable by modern practitioners could be cured by Ayurveda.¹¹ For that, faith in ayurveda and optimistic attitude is required. Besides, it is possible only through counseling and improving the method of treatment by traditional practitioners. Ayurvedic practitioners have to give the impression that the treatment is actually achieving something in case where speedy cure is not required. In addition, doctors' communication and openness regarding medicines can also improve usage and access to correct information regarding medicines and other treatments can aid to public and health care domain.

Ayurvedic practitioners should be compassionate about prescribing ayurvedic drugs only. It is very difficult especially when, numerous state governments such as Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Himachal Pradesh have noticeably permitted the Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani practitioners started to prescribe allopathic drugs so as to please more and more consumers.⁵

Due to shifting demands and expectations of patients and to improve the image, ayurvedic practitioners have adapted new methods of working such as concentrating on providing satisfactory reward to those patients, who are not well catered by Western doctors. Moreover, in present era, where, the importance of ayurveda is decreasing especially in young generation, it is a responsibility of practitioners to recognize problems of patients, to provide health education, to increase access to care and to ease appropriate use of health resources, improving quality of patient-doctor communication through information sharing, to conduct various health promotion and medical care programmes, free seminars and free medical check-up champs.

PRESENT STUDY:

This research attempts to throw light upon litigious thought of recurrence by taking views of ayurvedic practitioners. The present situation, where in the importance of traditional ayurvedic medicine is dematerializing in its own country of origin, it is very important to regain the hold by resolving the hurdles.

Till today, for a variety of social, cultural, economic and scientific reasons, ayurveda has been largely excluded by allopathy medicines.³ Such a problem has been experienced by many developing countries which follow plural health care systems including India. This often leads to a situation of diminishing resources and weakening impact of the traditional medicine on primary health care. ²⁷

Ayurveda faced many hurdle in terms of philosophical barriers, documentation, safety concerns, manufacturing techniques, regulatory aspects previously and at present too. But the fact is, every form of medicine has its own philosophy, parameters and even testing criteria. Hence, when we look at the place of ayurveda in modern world, it is impractical to show it as having a single flavor.

Previous literature lacks a coherent outline for analyzing opinion and reliance of patients in ayurvedic medicines and treatments in an era where the market is dominated by allopathy medicines. In other words, till today many studies have been done this pointed especially on consumer awareness and preference in general (by taking views of consumers only) rather than inquire it from a legitimate and reliable source (by taking views of experienced Government ayurvedic practitioners.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The present study is an attempt to gauge awareness among patients, their opinion and degree of reliance in ayurveda by taking views of Government ayurvedic practitioners.

METHOD:

The study followed quantitative as well as qualitative approach. Quantitative approach was followed to get adequate number of respondents and to yield an unbiased result there from. Qualitative approach was adopted as perceptions are best studied through this approach. The study systematically selected only class II ayurvedic practitioners of Gujarat, functioning under Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

The respondent practitioners were working either at cities or at rural areas of Ahmedabad, Jamnagar, Bhavnagar, Surat, Nadiad, and Vadodara. Participatory observation was carried out with practitioners at hospitals during OPD (Outdoor Patients Department) hours, during monthly meetings and in field clinics (including medical checkup camps).

SAMPLE:

The sampling strategy, a multistage process, involved identifying and selecting those Government ayurvedic practitioners who could provide satisfactory response in terms of providing details about patient’s awareness, opinion and reliance in ayurveda through their service experience. Initially, in the first stage, the study has adopted quota sampling method to divide the population into exclusive subgroups and thereby identify the respondents. The list of practitioners was collected through their official website (http://www.ggmoaa.org/).

Later, in the second stage of the study, convenience sampling method was adopted to decide upon adequate number of respondents in order to generate fair result. Selected practitioners were sent a letter asking them to participate in the study. This was followed by a telephone call, and a brief meeting. In sum, for the present empirical study, we find a support of (N=62) practitioners.

The respondents were distributed a structured close ended questionnaire. Questionnaire was divided in two parts. Questions in the first part of questionnaire were concise seeking primary information and second part of questionnaire consists of questions seeking detailed information about opinion of the respondents that can be measured with a 5 point Likert agreement scale.

Responses (data of close ended questionnaire) of the meeting with practitioners were coded and then analyzed through statistical software (SPSS 17.0 software).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

The data obtained were analyzed by statistical tools such as descriptive analysis, factor analysis and ANOVA.

Table 1 Demographic Profile

Demographics		Frequency	Percent
Age	26-30 Years	9	14.51
	31-35 Years	22	35.48
	36-40 Years	13	20.96
	41-45 Years	5	8.06
	46-50 Years	4	6.45
	51-55 Years	3	4.83
	56-59 Years	6	9.67
Gender	Male	27	43.54
Gender	Female	35	56.45
Years of experience	1-5 Years	14	22.58
	6-10 Years	19	30.64
	11-15 Years	15	24.19
	16-20 Years	3	4.83
	21-25 Years	2	3.22
	26-30 Years	3	4.83
	31-35 Years	6	9.67

The demographic attributes (Table 1) include details of place of work, age, gender, years of service experience.

Table 2 Consumption Pattern of Patients

Consumption pattern		Frequency	Percentage
Type of users	First Time users	18	29
Type of users	Regular users	44	71
Form of medicine	Tablet	57	91.9
	Powder	2	3.2
	Liquid	3	4.8
Stipulated time for Visits	Once in a week	34	54.8
	Every 15 days	13	21
	Once in a month	1	1.6
	As per doctor’s instruction	14	22.6
Prefer to cure normal ailments	Yes	53	85.5
Prefer to cure normal ailments	No	9	14.5
Prefer to cure chronic ailments	Yes	57	91.9
Prefer to cure chronic ailments	No	5	8.1
Simultaneous use of ayurvedic and allopathy medicines to cure same ailment	Yes	31	50.0
	No	31	50.0

Patient’s consumption pattern in views of ayurvedic practitioners is depicted in (Table 2). According 71 percent Government ayurvedic practitioners, majority of patients they treat were regular users of ayurvedic medicines and treatments. It indicates that regular users of ayurvedic medicine are more compare to first time users. As far as form of medicine is concerned, 91.9 per cent practitioners (57) revealed that patients prefer tablet form most. As far as patient’s visit at hospital is concerned, 22.6 per cent practitioners (14) inferred that patients follow their instruction for the repeat visits at hospital, while 54.8 per cent practitioners (34) viewed that patients visit the hospital weekly.

According to 85.5 per cent practitioners, patient choose ayurveda to treat normal ailments such as cold, fever, gastric disorders etc. According to 91.9 per cent doctors, patient prefer to consume ayurvedic medicines to treat chronic ailments such as heart problems, skin problems, joint pain etc. Moreover, 50 per cent doctors (31) opine that patients use ayurvedic and allopathy medicines simultaneously, to cure same disease.

Table 3 Cross Tabulation between Type of users and Preferred form of medicine

Type of Users	Most preferred form of ayurvedic medicine among patients			Total
Type of Users	Tablets	Powder	Liquid	Total
First Time users	17 (27.41%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.61%)	18
Regular users	40 (64.51%)	2 (3.22%)	2 (3.22%)	44
Total	57	2	3	62

The cross tabulation (Table 3) between type of users and form of medicine preferred by medicine reveals that according to 27.41 per cent ayurvedic practitioners, first time users prefer tablet form of ayurvedic medicines. Adding to that, in views of 64.51 per cent practitioners, regular users also prefer the same form (tablet).

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR OPINION AND AWARENESS OF PATIENTS:

Descriptive statistics for opinion and awareness of patients has been described in Table 4. According to Government ayurvedic practitioners, in recent years, patients’ trust and reliability in ayurveda has increased (M=4.13, SD=.778) but still, awareness regarding ayurvedic treatments is less compare to yoga and healing treatment (M=3.82, SD= 1.167). Majority of patients are aware of only the name of ayurveda they don’t have basic knowledge of ayurvedic treatments (M=3.81, SD=1.128) such as vaman, virechan, shirodhara etc. Moreover, M.O enlightened that patients share information such as their past experiences (M=3.95, SD= .777) and simultaneous use of allopathy medicines (M=3.87, SD= .839).

Table 4: Reliability Statistics for important factors considered by patients before selecting type of treatment

Cronbach's Alpha	N of Items
.722	22

The alpha coefficient (Table 4) for the 22 items is 0.722, suggesting that the items have relatively high internal consistency.

Table 5 Patient’s reliance in ayurveda

Factors	Mean	SD
Mostly patients are satisfied by the results of ayurvedic medicines and treatments at your hospital	3.95	0.612
They avoid trying out other modern medicines for the same problem once they have taken ayurvedic medicine	3.71	1.062
Patients are confident enough that their decision to follow ayurveda is proper	3.89	0.727
Majority of patients continue with the medicines or treatments as per your instructions	3.58	0.737
They inform to others who are not aware about the benefits and various treatments available in ayurveda	4.16	0.729

Table 5 shows patient’s reliance in ayurveda in views of Government ayurvedic practitioners. Patients who have experienced the treatment of ayurveda and those who are currently passing through are satisfied and confident enough that their decision to follow ayurveda was proper (M=3.890, SD=.727). Therefore, patients spread information to others who are not aware about the benefits and various treatments available in ayurveda (M=4.16, SD=0.729). Besides that, patients continue with the same medicines or treatments instructed by them (M=3.58, SD=0.737) and according to practitioners, once patients have taken ayurvedic medicine, they avoid trying out other modern medicines for the similar problems (M=3.71, SD= 1.062).

FACTOR ANALYSIS:

Factor analysis was carried out to study practitioners’ view regarding patient’s awareness for ayurveda. Practitioners indicated their views through 16 statements on the basis of Five Point Likert Scale.

Table 6: KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		.549
Bartlett’s Test for Spherisity	Approx. Chi-Square	297.444
	df	120
	Sig.	.000

Table 6 reveals KMO and Bartlett’s Test. The value of KMO Measure is likely to be 0.549, which is more than the minimum cut off rate of 0.50. This indicates that the sample is adequate factor analysis can be performed. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity shows the value of Chi-Square at 297.444 with 120 degrees of freedom. It is significant at 5% level of significance. This indicates the suitability of data for factor analysis.

16 variables were clubbed into five factors (have the Eigen values more than 1.00). The result also showed that these five factors were accounted for 62.889 per cent of the total variance. Reproduced correlation and residuals depicted 59 (49.0%) non-redundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05. Higher percentage of non-redundant is the acceptability of the model fit. So, it can be concluded that the data are fit for factor analysis.

Table 7 Rotated Component Matrix

Factors	Component
Awareness regarding Ayurveda
Majority of consumers are aware of only the name of ayurveda they don’t have basic knowledge of ayurvedic treatment	.719
Majority of patients regard ayurveda as a secondary solution	.670
Majority of patients regard ayurveda as a last resort	.724
Still mind set of Indians are not accepting Yoga and Pranayama as daily practice	.573
Compare to Yoga and healing treatment, other ayurvedic treatments (such as Vaman, Virechan, Swedan etc.) are less popular	.816
Communication between patients and doctors
Patients share information such as simultaneous use of allopathy and ayurvedic medicines	.769
Patients share their past experience frankly (if any)	.869
Consumption pattern
People still view ayurveda only as a kind of home remedy	.837
Most of the patients do not switch to any other modern medicines once they have taken ayurvedic medicines	.682
Mostly consumption of ayurvedic medicine is self decision of patient	.520
Overall consumer awareness regarding ayurveda is less compared to allopathy medicines in Gujarat	.493
Impact of education
Urban patients are more aware about ayurveda compare to rural patients	.322
Educated patients prefer ayurvedic medicines most	.627
Faith in Ayurveda
Patients do not complain about long term consumption of ayurvedic. medicine to cure ailment	.804
Trust and reliability in ayurveda has increased in recent years	.506

Rotated Component Matrix has been shown in Table 7. It shows the correlation of the variables with each of the extracted factors. Usually, each of the variables is highly loaded in one factor and less loaded towards the other factors. To identify the variables, included in each factor, the variable with the value maximum in each row is selected to be part of the respective factor. The values have been high lightened in each of the rows to group the 16 variables into 5 core factors. Hence, after performing factor analysis, five factors have emerged that describe the opinion and awareness of patients in views of Government ayurvedic practitioners.

Referring to table 7, the reduced factors are as follows:

Factor 1: Elements of this factor are directly related to respondent’s awareness and view point regarding ayurveda hence, is named as ‘Awareness regarding ayurveda’.

Factor 2: Statements under this factor are information shared by patients with practitioners. Therefore, it is termed as ‘Communication between patients and doctors’.

Factor 3: Elements of this factor are associated with consumption of ayurvedic medicines thus, it is termed as ‘Consumption pattern’.

Factor 4: This factor includes statements reflecting impact of education among people hence it is named as ‘Impact of education’.

Factor 5: Statements under this factor are linked with trust, reliability and confidence in ayurveda for this reason, it is termed as ‘Faith in Ayurveda’.

Based on factor analysis, it can be interpreted that in views of practitioners, patients were influenced by aspects such as awareness regarding ayurveda, communication between patients and doctors, consumption pattern, impact of education, faith in ayurveda. Moreover, no analysis has been carried out for remaining statements as they neither have high loadings nor low loadings.

RESULTS:

The present study revealed that according to Government ayurvedic practitioners, regular patients have faith in ayurveda but the level of awareness is poor. The study not only resulted in getting a clear picture of perception of ayurvedic practitioners regarding patient, but also benefited in understanding views of patient for ayurveda.

In views of Government ayurvedic practitioners, there are more regular patients compare to first time users of ayurvedic medicines and treatments. Most of them prefer tablet form of medicine followed by powder and liquid forms. According to practitioners, patients prefer to follow ayurvedic treatments in both normal as well as in chronic ailments. While there is a mixed perception of practitioners regarding simultaneous use of ayurvedic and allopathy medicine by patients to treat the same ailment.

According to practitioners, though trust, reliability and demand for ayurveda has increased recently, still majority of patients are aware of only the name of ayurveda, they don’t have any basic knowledge of ayurveda and its treatment. As far as factors considered by patients before the consumption of ayurvedic medicine is concerned, faith in ayurveda, positive features of ayurveda such as less side effects and removal of disease from root level, possible time span to recover from ailment, possible consumption period, and availability of Government hospital in nearby area are important aspects. Moreover, patients who are satisfied by the result of the treatment, inform others who are not aware about it. Based on the ANOVA results it can be said that there is a relationship between age and awareness of patients. Factor analysis has clearly brought out five factors namely awareness regarding ayurveda, communication between patients and doctors, consumption pattern, impact of education and faith in ayurveda.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER SCOPE OF RESEARCH:

The limitations of current research lay the ground for promising future research and identify several directions for possible extensions. The present study was restricted to opinions of only Government ayurvedic practitioners of selected cities of Gujarat hence; further research could take views those ayurvedic practitioners, functioning at private sectors and could examine the potential for cultural differences between more cities and states of India. Combine views of practitioners positioned at different geographical locations could give better picture of existing approach for ayurveda. The study lacks in generating variance in level of patient’s awareness and opinion regarding ayurveda and its treatment before and after the treatment. Moreover, large number of samples by using only quantitative research method could generate better picture.

REFERENCES:

1. Bagga, N. Ayush Report on QA, 2010. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109895873/Ayush-Report-on-QA# scribd accessed on September 18, 2015.

2. Bala, P. Medicine and Medical Policies in India: Social and Historical Perspectives. Lexington Books: Maryland. 1958.

3. Bandello, G. and Menkes, D. Mind/Body Approaches to Health and Illness: A Challenge to Biomedicine? TASA Conference 2006, University of Western Australia and Murdoch University, 2006; 1-10.

4. British Medical Association, Alternative Therapy. Report to the Board of Science and Education. London: BMA. 1986.

5. Chandra, S. Report on the status of Indian medicine and folk healing-with a focus on the benefits that the systems have given the public. International quarterly journal of research in Ayurveda, 2011; 32(3): 299–303.

6. Coward, R. The Whole Truth: The Myth of Alternative Health. Faber and Faber: London. 1989.

7. Doley, K. Clash over the cure. Retrieved September 18, 2015, from http://www.financialexpress.com/article/lifestyle/health/clash-over-the-cure/112256/ 2015.

8. Ernst, E. Harmless herbs? A review of the recent literature. The American Journal of Medicine, 1998; 104(2): 170-178.

9. Furnham, A. and Smith, C. Choosing Alternative Medicine: A Comparison of the Beliefs of Patients Visiting a General Practitioner and a Homeopath. Social Science and Medicine, 1988; 26(7):685-689.

10. Goldstein, M. S. The Health Movement: Promoting Fitness in America (Social Movements Past and Present). Twayne Pub: New York, 1992.

11. Glynn, J. R. and Heymann, T. D. Factors that influence patients in Sri Lanka in their choice between Ayurvedic and Western medicine. British Medical Journal, 1985; 291. 470-472.

12. Helman, C. G. Culture, Health and Illness. 5th edition. Hodder Education: London. 2007.

13. Jamison, D. T. et al. (2006). Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd edition. Ch. 69. 1-12. Washington DC Retrieved August 4, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ books/NBK11796/

14. Johnston, R. D. The Politics of Healing: Histories of Alternative Medicine in Twentieth-Century North America. Routledge Tayor and Francis Group: London. 2004.

15. Kelner, M., and Wellman, B. Health care and consumer choice: Medical and alternative therapies. Social Science and Medicine, 1997;45(2): 203-212.

16. Kleinman, A. Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. University of California Press: Berkeley. 1981.

17. Kuruvilla, A. Herbal formulations as phamacotherapeutic agents. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 2002; 40: 7-11.

18. Manawaria, S. Ayurveda Gets A Boost In India, But Export Hurdles Remain. The Doller Business. Retrieved June 23, 2014 from https://www.thedollarbusiness.com/ayurveda-gets-a-boost-in-india-but-export-hurdles-remain/ 2014.

19. Meredith, M. and Kantor, D. Ritual Healing in Suburban America. Rutgers University: New Brunswick. 1988.

20. Montbriand, M. and G. Laing. Alternative Health as a Control Strategy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1991; 16: 325-32.

21. Pandey, M.M, et al. (2013). Indian traditional ayurvedic system of medicine and nutritional supplementation. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013.

22. Pawluch, Dorothy, Roy, C. and Gillett, J. Ideology and alternative therapy use among people living with HIV/AIDS. Health and Canadian Society, 1994; 2(1):63-83.

23. Singha, K. and Patikar, G. Rural Development in North East India. Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd: New Delhi: India. 2010.

24. Suchman, E. Stages of Illness and Medical Care. Journal of Health and Human Behaviour, 1965; 6:114-28.

25. The New Indian Express: Kochi: More corporate staff turn to Ayurveda. Retrieved September 17, 2015 from http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/kochi-more-corporate-staff-turn-to-ayurveda-495942.html/2012.

26. The South Asian Regional Conference: Traditional medicine and right to health for all. Retrieved from http://english.aifo.it/ learning materials/traditional_medicine_south_asia.pdf/2006.

27. Unschuld, P. U. Western Medicine and Traditional Healing Systems: Competition, cooperation or integration? Ethics in Science and Medicine, 1976; 3(1), 1-20.

28. Vincent, C. and Furnham, A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1996; 35: 37-48.

29. Zola, I. K. The Concept of Trouble and Sources of Medical Assistance--To Whom One Can Turn, With What and Why. Social Science and Medicine, 1972; 6: 673-79.

30. Zola, I. K. Pathways to the Doctor: From Person to Patient. Social Science and Medicine, 1973; 7: 677-89.

Received on 12.05.2017 Modified on 08.06.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(4):1029-1036.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00158.5