Table 4.
Marginal Effects of CAM Visits on the Number of MSM visits*
| NHW | Hispanic | Black | Asian | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any CAM visits | 0.458 | −2.371 | 0.942 | ||
| Chiropractic | 0.543 | −3.656 | |||
| Acupuncture | 1.539 | 2.796 | |||
| Nutritional | 1.015 | ||||
| Massage | 0.805 | 0.952 | |||
| Herbal | 0.984 | −3.230 | |||
| Biofeedback | −1.409 | ||||
| Meditation | −1.161 | ||||
| Homeopathy | −1.276 | −2.876 | |||
| Spiritual | −0.649 | −0.848 | 0.855 | ||
| Hypnosis | |||||
| Traditional | −1.163 | 0.958 | |||
| Other | −0.776 | −1.271 | |||
*
Unconditional marginal effects (ME) obtained from the two-part multivariate model. Unconditional ME = ME (logistic) ×N+ME (negative binomial) × Prob (N > 0). ME (logistic) and ME (negative binomial) are the marginal effects of CAM use in the logistic and negative binomial equations, respectively. N is the mean number of MSM visits among MSM users and Prob (N > 0) is the probability of having any MSM visits. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) results are shown. The control variables used are shown in Table 1.
CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; MSM, mainstream medicine; NHW, non-Hispanic whites.