Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Herbal medicine remains part of community health practice, but factual knowledge and endorsement of statements about safety, use, and social experience are distinct constructs. Examining how the recorded scores co-occur may inform cautious, culturally appropriate communication. Objective: To examine the association between knowledge and questionnaire-defined trust in herbal medicine among surveyed residents of Toyado Village. Methods: This analytic cross-sectional survey was conducted in Toyado Village, Lage District, Poso Regency, on June 13, 2026. Ninety-three participants were recruited by purposive, nonprobability sampling. Knowledge and questionnaire-defined trust were recorded using eight-item and six-item dichotomous scores, respectively. The primary analysis used a two-tailed Spearman rank correlation of total scores; exploratory partial rank correlations adjusted for age, education, and ethnicity. Precision was summarized with 95% bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals. Results: The median knowledge score was 7 (Q1–Q3: 6–8) and the median questionnaire-defined trust score was 4 (Q1–Q3: 2–5). Knowledge was categorized as good in 54 participants (58.1%), moderately good in 33 (35.5%), and poor in six (6.5%); corresponding trust categories were 45 (48.4%), 10 (10.8%), and 38 (40.9%). The total scores showed a positive association (Spearman’s ρ = 0.456; 95% CI: 0.267–0.614; p < 0.001). The exploratory adjusted partial rank correlation was 0.360 (95% CI: 0.160–0.571; p < 0.001). Forty participants (43.0%) reached the maximum knowledge score, indicating a potential ceiling effect. Conclusion: Knowledge and questionnaire-defined trust scores were positively associated within this nonprobability sample, but the cross-sectional design does not establish temporal order or causality. Purposive recruitment, a ceiling effect for knowledge, limited documented reliability, and the heterogeneous trust items constrain population inference and construct interpretation
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tampa'i et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: