Table 3. Association Between CAM Use and Number of Chronic Conditions, National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

CAM Modality Outcome Measuresa
Unadjusted Models			Minimally Adjustedb Models			Final Adjustedc Models
No. of Chronic Conditions			No. of Chronic Conditions			No. of Chronic Conditions
0	1	≥2	0	1	≥2	0	1	≥2
n = 13,790	n = 7,427	n = 12,340	n = 13,790	n = 7,427	n = 12,340	n = 13,790	n = 7,427	N = 12,340
CAM indexes, β coefficient (95% CI)d
All CAM
Ref	0.4e	0.5e	Ref	0.3e	0.6e	Ref	0.3e	0.6e
	(0.3–0.4)	(0.5–0.6)		(0.3–0.4)	(0.5–0.6)		(0.3–0.4)	(0.6–0.7)
Excluding multivitamins/minerals
Ref	0.3e	0.4e	Ref	0.3e	0.5e	Ref	0.3e	0.5e
	(0.3–0.4)	(0.4–0.5)		(0.2–0.3)	(0.4–0.5)		(0.2–0.3)	(0.5–0.6)
Excluding multivitamins, vitamins, and minerals
Ref	0.1e	0.1e	Ref	0.1e	0.2e	Ref	0.1e	0.2e
	(0.1–0.2)	(0.1–0.1)		(0.1–0.2)	(0.2–0.2)		(0.1–0.2)	(0.2–0.3)
Specific CAM therapies, RR (95% CI)f
Multivitamin or multimineral
Ref	1.1e	1.2e	Ref	1.1g	1.1e	Ref	1.1e	1.2e
	(1.1–1.2)	(1.1–1.2)		(1.0–1.1)	(1.1–1.2)		(1.0–1.1)	(1.1–1.2)
Mineral
Ref	1.4e	1.8e	Ref	1.2e	1.4e	Ref	1.2e	1.4e
	(1.3–1.5)	(1.7–1.9)		(1.1–1.3)	(1.3–1.5)		(1.1–1.3)	(1.4–1.5)
Vitamin
Ref	1.3e	1.6e	Ref	1.2e	1.4e	Ref	1.2e	1.4e
	(1.3–1.4)	(1.5–1.6)		(1.2–1.3)	(1.3–1.5)		(1.2–1.3)	(1.3–1.5)
Nonvitamin or herbal therapies
Ref	1.5e	1.6e	Ref	1.4e	1.7e	Ref	1.4e	1.7e
	(1.4–1.6)	(1.5–1.7)		(1.3–1.5)	(1.5–1.8)		(1.3–1.6)	(1.6–1.9)
Mind–body therapy
Ref	1.1h	0.9 e	Ref	1.2e	1.4e	Ref	1.3e	1.6e
	(1.0–1.2)	(0.8–0.9)		(1.1–1.4)	(1.3–1.6)		(1.2–1.4)	(1.4–1.7)
Chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation
Ref	1.4e	1.3e	Ref	1.3e	1.4e	Ref	1.3e	1.4e
	(1.3–1.6)	(1.2–1.5)		(1.2–1.5)	(1.2–1.6)		(1.2–1.5)	(1.2–1.6)
Massage
Ref	1.2g	1.2e	Ref	1.3e	1.8e	Ref	1.3e	1.9e
	(1.1–1.4)	(1.1–1.4)		(1.1–1.4)	(1.6–2.1)		(1.2–1.5)	(1.7–2.2)
Movement therapy
Ref	1.1h	0.7e	Ref	1.2h	1.2h	Ref	1.3e	1.3e
	(1.0–1.2)	(0.6–0.8)		(1.1–1.4)	(1.0–1.4)		(1.1–1.4)	(1.1–1.5)
Special diets
Ref	1.5e	1.5e	Ref	1.5e	1.9e	Ref	1.5e	1.8e
	(1.2–1.8)	(1.3–1.8)		(1.2–1.9)	(1.5–2.4)		(1.2–1.9)	(1.5–2.4)
Homeopathy
Ref	1.2h	1.0 h	Ref	1.3h	1.3h	Ref	1.3h	1.4h
	(1.0–1.6)	(0.8–1.3)		(1.0–1.6)	(1.0–1.7)		(1.0–1.7)	(1.0–1.8)
Acupuncture
Ref	1.4h	1.5e	Ref	1.3h	1.6h	Ref	1.3h	1.8e
	(1.0–1.8)	(1.2–1.9)		(1.0–1.8)	(1.2–2.1)		(1.0–1.8)	(1.3–2.4)
Naturopathy
Ref	1.2h	1.4h	Ref	1.3h	2.0h	Ref	1.4h	2.4e
	(0.9–1.8)	(1.0–2.0)		(0.9–2.0)	(1.3–3.2)		(0.9–2.1)	(1.5– 3.8)
Traditional healers
Ref	0.8h	1.0h	Ref	1.1h	1.9h	Ref	1.1h	1.9h
	(0.5–1.3)	(0.6–1.5)		(0.6–1.9)	(1.1–3.2)		(0.6–2.0)	(1.1–3.2)
Craniosacral
Ref	0.8h	1.2h	Ref	0.7h	1.2h	Ref	0.7h	1.4h
	(0.4–1.5)	(0.7–2.0)		(0.3–1.4)	(0.6–2.7)		(0.4–1.5)	(0.6–3.1)
Ayurvedic medicine
Ref	0.7h	0.5h	Ref	0.7h	0.6h	Ref	0.7h	0.6h
	(0.4– 1.2)	(0.3– 1.0)		(0.4– 1.2)	(0.3– 1.3)		(0.4– 1.3)	(0.3–1.3)

Abbreviations: CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.

^a Each modality was run as a separate relative risk regression model.

^b Adjusted for age, sex, race, income, employment status, and education.

^c Adjusted for age, sex, race, income, employment status, education, body mass index, and marital status.

^d Values are β (95% CI).

^e P value <.001 (α = .003 after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons).

^f Values are RR (95% CI).

^g P value <.003 (α = .003 after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons).

^h P value >.003 (α = .003 after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons).