TABLE 2.
—Comparison of Users and Nonusers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Canada and the United States
| Canada | United States | |||||
| Users, % | Nonusers, % | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Users, % | Nonusers, % | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
| Age, y | ||||||
| 15–19 | 4 | 7 | 1.00 | 4 | 10 | 1.00 |
| 20–44 | 53 | 47 | 1.43 (1.34, 1.53) | 50 | 49 | 1.77 (1.17, 2.66) |
| 45–64 | 30 | 26 | 1.42 (1.35, 1.50) | 35 | 26 | 2.04 (1.34, 3.11) |
| ≥ 65 | 13 | 20 | 0.68 (0.63, 0.74) | 12 | 15 | 1.29 (0.80, 2.08) |
| Male | 43 | 47 | 0.79 (0.77, 0.82) | 37 | 48 | 0.72 (0.62, 0.84) |
| White | 96 | 92 | 2.07 (1.95, 2.19) | 92 | 82 | 2.32 (1.71, 3.14) |
| High school or higher | 77 | 71 | 1.40 (1.35, 1.46) | 88 | 74 | 1.78 (1.30, 2.44) |
| Residencea | ||||||
| East | 2 | 5 | 1.00 | 38 | 56 | 1.00 |
| Central | 50 | 58 | 2.84 (2.69, 3.01) | 30 | 22 | 1.79 (1.41, 2.27) |
| West | 49 | 37 | 4.68 (4.36, 5.02) | 32 | 22 | 2.47 (2.00, 3.04) |
| Health status | ||||||
| Excellent | 20 | 24 | 1.11 (1.09, 1.13) | 28 | 30 | 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) |
| Very good | 39 | 38 | 33 | 30 | ||
| Good | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 | ||
| Fair | 10 | 9 | 9 | 11 | ||
| Poor | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | ||
| Problem with instrumental ADLs | 14 | 11 | 1.73 (1.63, 1.83) | 3 | 4 | 0.63 (0.34, 1.17) |
| Problem with ADLs | 2 | 2 | 0.77 (0.71, 0.84) | 2 | 2 | 1.34 (0.63, 2.86) |
| Saw MD/DO in past 12 mo | 85 | 78 | 1.45 (1.39, 1.50) | 84 | 65 | 2.57 (2.11, 3.13) |
Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; ADLs = activities of daily living; CAM = complementary and alternative medicine (acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy/naturopathy, massage therapy); MD = doctor of medicine; DO = doctor of osteopathy.
aEast = Atlantic Canada (including Nunavut) and Northeast and South US census divisions; Central = Quebec and Ontario and Midwest US census division; West = remaining Canadian provinces and territories and West US census division.