Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Women Participating in alternative Medicine Approaches for Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Study (Mean ± Standard Deviation, or Count)

Intervention group	Specialty care	Traditional Chinese Medicine	Naturopathic medicine
Sample size	60	50	50
Age (yrs)	40.5 ± 9.4	40.1 ± 8.5	40.6 ± 9.2
Education
Some HS	2	0	1
HS grad	11	5	13
Some college	25	24	19
College graduate	8	8	7
Post college	14	13	10
Income
<$25,000	12	8	7
<$50,000	15	18	17
<$75,000	20	13	13
<$100,000	5	6	6
>$100,000	5	4	1
Race
Native American	1	1	4
Asian/Pacific Is	3	1	0
Black	1	0	2
White	52	47	39
Other	3	1	5
Hispanic
Yes	2	1	6
No	58	49	44
Depressiona
Moderately depressed % (n)	35% (21)	32% (16)	32% (16)
Severely depressed % (n)	47% (28)	52% (26)	54% (27)
Current smoker	18%	18%	22%
Expectancyb
Acupuncture	3.55 ± 1.05	3.83 ± 1.01	3.38 ± 1.09
Herbs	3.34 ± 0.90	3.30 ± 0.9	3.09 ± 0.83
NM	3.31 ± 0.84	3.52 ± 0.89	3.35 ± 0.98
Duration of facial pain (yrs)	7.3 ± 8.2	8.8 ± 8.3	5.4 ± 6.9
Quality of pain
Persistent	29	22	18
Recurrent	28	26	30
Number who have ever used CAM
Acupuncturec	17	12	6
Biofeedback	6	10	8
Chiropractic	34	30	21
Herbs from practitioner	10	7	7
Herbs from store	18	21	18
Homeopathy	10	5	8
Massage	27	23	25
Naturopathyc	6	7	7
Percent who have tried any CAM modality	72%	74%	72%

CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; NM, naturopathic medicine.

^aSCL-90-R from the Research Diagnostic Criteria (range 0–4).

^bSubjects prospectively scored expectancies about each treatment type as (1) very unhelpful, (2) somewhat unhelpful, (3) not sure, (4) somewhat helpful, (5) very helpful.

^cIndividuals who had tried these therapies for temporomandibular joint dysfunction were excluded from the study.