Table 6. Reported sources of recommendation, overall and by city^a,b,c.

	Europe		Italy		Milan		Venice		Rome		Catania
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Health/herbal shop assistant	440	15.3	145	34.8	46	39.7	37	36.6	29	29.6	33	32.4
Friends/relatives	1066	37.1	128	30.7	38	32.8	28	27.7	31	31.6	31	30.4
Nobody/myself	618	21.5	62	14.9	22	19.0	17	16.8	8	8.2	15	14.7
Pharmacist	279	9.7	56	13.4	12	10.3	8	7.9	16	16.3	18	17.6
Family doctor	302	10.5	52	12.5	8	6.9	5	5.0	13	13.3	26	25.5
Internet/social group	179	6.2	13	3.1	1	0.9	1	1.0	0	0	11	10.8
Homeopath	144	5.0	13	3.1	4	3.4	5	5,0	2	2.0	2	2.0
Magazine/newspaper	220	7.7	7	1.7	1	0.9	2	2.0	1	1.0	3	2.9
Nutritionist/dietician	234	8.1	5	1.2	2	1.7	1	1.0	1	1.0	1	1.0
Paramedic personneld	36	1.3	5	1.2	1	0.9	1	1.0	1	1.0	2	2.0
TV/Radio	59	2.1	4	1.0	0	0	2	2.0	0	0	2	2.0
Gym trainer	8	0.3	4	1.0	2	1.7	0	0	1	1.0	1	1.0
Uncertain	32	1.1	1	0.2	0	0	0	0	1	1.0	0	0
Brochure/Leaflet	37	1.3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Books/scientific journals	3	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Telemarketing/Network marketing	12	0.4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
CAMe Therapist	10	0.3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total PFS used	n = 2874		n = 417		n = 116		n = 101		n = 98		n = 102

^agrey cells indicate the three most reported sources of recommendation

^bthe consumer could indicate several sources of recommendation for each PFS; percentage are referred to the total PFS used

^creported sources of recommendation are listed according to the decreasing order of reply coming from the Italian respondents

^dincluding nurses, opticians, physical therapists

^eCAM = Complementary and Alternative Medicine