In rural India, herbal medicine remains a fundamental element of primary healthcare, particularly in areas where access to structured medical facilities is either economically restricted or limited. Despite the rapid advancements in synthetic pharmaceuticals and biotechnology-driven drug discovery, plant-based therapeutic systems continue to be relevant in terms of economic, cultural, and practical terms. The present study examines the prevalence, therapeutic applications, preparation practices, pharmaceutical implications, and integration potential of herbal remedies in rural villages near Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The evaluation of ethnopharmacological practices from a pharmaceutical sciences perspective is prioritized, with a particular emphasis on the impact on public health, phytochemical variability, safety profiling, and dosage standardization. To guarantee representation across age groups and occupations, a descriptive cross-sectional survey was implemented among 50 respondents who were selected through stratified random sampling. A validated structured questionnaire was employed to collect data, which evaluated demographic characteristics, disease categories treated with herbal remedies, preparation methods, sources of knowledge transmission, awareness regarding dosage and safety, perceived effectiveness, adverse effects, and attitudes toward integration into formal healthcare systems. Descriptive percentage analysis was implemented to conduct statistical assessments. Variability in phytochemical content, absence of quality control, absence of clinical validation, and potential herb–drug interactions were identified as significant concerns from a pharmaceutical perspective. Nevertheless, the substantial potential for the structured integration of validated herbal therapies within primary healthcare frameworks is indicated by the pervasive acceptance and strong community trust. The study concludes that botanical medicine in rural Greater Noida is both a public health asset and a pharmaceutical challenge.
Neha et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: