Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan;141(1):e20170559. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0559

TABLE 3.

Attitudes and Barriers Regarding MM Use

All Providers (N = 288), Frequency (%) Providers Legally ETC for MM (n = 96), Frequency (%) Providers n-ETC for MM (n = 192), Frequency (%) Unadjusted OR (95% CI) Unadjusted P Adjusted Model N Adjusted ORa (95% CI) Adjusted Pa
Willing to help patients access MM 240 of 261 (92) 71 of 84 (85) 169 of 177 (95) 0.26 (0.1–0.65) .0041 244 0.61 (0.17–2.15) .44
Approve of patients smoking MM 133 of 234 (57) 29 of 75 (39) 104 of 159 (65) 0.33 (0.19–0.59) .0002 219 0.25 (0.11–0.55) .0005
Approve of patients using oral formulations of MM 223 of 250 (89) 56 of 76 (74) 167 of 174 (96) 0.12 (0.05–0.29) <.0001 236 0.17 (0.05–0.53) .0025
Approve of using MM as cancer-directed therapy 158 of 236 (67) 19 of 80 (24) 139 of 156 (89) 0.04 (0.02–0.08) <.0001 222 0.04 (0.01–0.09) <.0001
Approve of using MM to manage symptoms 236 of 258 (92) 67 of 82 (82) 169 of 176 (96) 0.19 (0.07–0.47) .0004 244 0.16 (0.05–0.52) .0026
Favor clinical trials investigating MM use in children 237 of 256 (93) 80 of 85 (94) 157 of 171 (92) 1.43 (0.5–4.1) .51
Unconcerned about substance abuse among patients who receive MM 162 of 259 (63) 55 of 90 (61) 107 of 169 (63) 0.91 (0.54–1.54) .73
Unconcerned about prosecution for helping patients access MM 208 of 260 (80) 75 of 91 (82) 133 of 169 (79) 1.27 (0.66–2.44) .48

—, not included in model.

a

In multivariate logistic regression, we compared ETC to n-ETC providers (reference group), adjusting for provider age, sex, race, and location of practice.