Table 3.

Comparison of Clinicians' Orientation toward Integrative Medicine Scale and Subscales with Demographic Characteristics and Hypothesized Constructs

	IM-30 Score	Awareness and Openness	Readiness to Refer	Learning from Alternate Paradigms	Patient-Centered Care	Safety of Integrative Medicine
	(0–100)	(0–100)	(0–100)	(0–100)	(0–100)	(0–100)
Demographics
Age
(continuous)	0.01	0.07	−0.12	0.10	−0.08	0.01
<40 years	62	64	66	37*	74	69
40–60 years	67	72	65	45	75	78
>60 years	59	63	58	44	71	66
Gender
Male	64	68	62*	42	75	73
Female	66	69	69	43	71	75
Ethnicity
White	65	68	65	42	75	75
Asian	62	68	62	39	68	70
Latino	63	68	68	39	69	64
Other	66	60	56	63	82	81
Nativity
U.S. born	65	68	65	44	76***	75
Foreign born	63	71	62	39	67	71
Type of practitioner
Physician acupuncturists	71***	77***	68***	49***	82***	78***
Physicians	50	48	54	29	70	50
Chiropractors	69	76	66	46	76	87
Acupuncturists	69	74	70	48	65	81
Practice setting
Integrative clinic	67	74	68	45	75	73**
Nonintegrative (academic)	57	58	61	36	71	62
Nonintegrative (private)	66	71	64	44	74	78
Providers' training
Credential†
Dual-trained	71***	77***	68*	49**	82***	79*
Single-trained	62	65	63	40	70	72
Main medical paradigm
Conventional	50***	48***	53***	31***	72	51***
CAM	69	75	67	47	70	84
Providers' attitude
Self-perceived integrativeness
(continuous)	0.60***	0.57**	0.39**	0.33**	0.20**	0.53**
Lowest (0–4)	53***	53***	55***	35***	69**	60***
Middle (5–7)	66	71	67	43	73	76
Highest (8–10)	72	79	69	48	77	82

^*p<.05

^**p<.01

^***p<.001.

^†Chiropractors are classified as dual-trained if they have dual credentials of D.C. and L.Ac.