Table 2.
Results of the latent profile analysis per group. Values are absolute frequencies (percentages)
| Class – class characteristics (compared to other classes) | Acupuncture (n = 220) |
Homeopathy (n = 113) |
Control (n = 315) |
Total (n = 648) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – CAM negative, science high, care low, status high | 2 (1%) | - | 89 (28%) | 91 (14%) |
| 2 – CAM neutral, science high & care & status moderate | 25 (11%) | 22 (19%) | 114 (36%) | 161 (25%) |
| 3 – CAM interest strong/Acupuncture moderate/Homeopathy positive, science low, care high, status low | 24 (11%) | 49 (43%) | 28 (9%) | 101 (16%) |
| 4 – CAM interest strong/Acupuncture positive/Homeopathy neutral, science & care and status moderate | 91 (41%) | 13 (12%) | 26 (8%) | 130 (20%) |
| 5 – CAM interest strong, science low, care high, status low | 53 (24%) | 29 (26%) | 18 (6%) | 100 (15%) |
| 6 – CAM interest neutral/Acupuncture positive/Homeopathy negative, science moderate, care low, status high | 25 (11%) | - | 40 (13%) | 65 (10%) |
Bold data indicate the two most frequent classes per group, respectively