Medicinal plants used for peptic ulcer disease by traditional health practitioners in the Vhembe District Municipality, South Africa

Abstract

Background: Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains a major health burden, particularly in resource-limited settings where traditional medicines continue to play an important role. This study documented and quantitatively evaluated medicinal plants used by Traditional Health Practitioners (THPs) for PUD treatment in the Vhembe District Municipality (VDM), Limpopo Province, South Africa, and assessed variation in plant use across municipalities.

Methods: An ethnobotanical survey was conducted from February to March 2026 among 60 THPs selected through snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews captured information on diagnosis, medicinal plants used, harvested parts, and preparation methods. Ethnobotanical indices, including ethnobotanicity index (EI), informant consensus factor (ICF), use value index (UVI), and relative frequency of citation (RFC), were calculated. A chi-square test assessed differences in plant use among municipalities (p ≤ 0.05).

Results: A total of 27 species from 20 families were recorded, with Fabaceae, Asteraceae, Combretaceae, and Rhamnaceae as the most represented families. Remedies were primarily prepared as decoctions or infusions  from roots and bark,  consistent with commonly reported  ethnomedicinal practices for the treatment of  gastrointestinal disorders in the region. Most species (75%) were used singly; however, half of the THPs also prepared multi‑plant remedies. While 21 species were listed as Least Concern, the dominance of destructive harvesting methods highlights sustainability risks. Culturally salient species included Annona senegalensis Pers., Schkuhria pinnata (Lam.) Kuntze ex Thell., Peltophorum africanum Sond., Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst. and Cissampelos torulosa E.Mey. ex Harv. A low EI (3.47%) and high ICF (0.827) indicated a focused pharmacopoeia with strong practitioner agreement. No significant differences in plant use were observed across municipalities based on the   chi‑Square test (p ≤ 0.05), suggesting shared district‑wide therapeutic knowledge.

Conclusions: Peptic ulcer disease treatment in the VDM relies on a cohesive set of medicinal plants supported by high cultural consensus. Although most species are not currently threatened, reliance on roots and bark underscores the need for sustainable harvesting practices.

Keywords: Ethnobotany; Peptic ulcer disease; Medicinal plants, Traditional health practitioners