Table 3.
Comparison of patient demographics between types of TCM users (n = 329)
| Use before dialysis n = 132 (40.1%) |
Use after dialysis n = 81 (24.6%) |
Never use n = 116 (35.3%) |
p- value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (numerical) |
55.3 (12.0)b |
51.5 (13.1)b |
56.7 (12.3)b | 0.015c |
| Age (category) | ||||
| < 20 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.2) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 21–30 | 4 (3.0) | 4 (4.9) | 3 (2.6) | |
| 31–40 | 13 (9.8) | 12 (14.8) | 13 (11.2) | – |
| 41–50 | 24 (18.2) | 17 (21.0) | 14 (12.1) | |
| 51–60 | 43 (32.6) | 25 (30.9) | 35 (30.2) | |
| > 60 | 48 (36.4) | 22 (27.2) | 51 (44.0) | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 72 (54.5) | 42 (51.9) | 66 (56.9) | 0.787a |
| Female | 60 (45.5) | 39 (48.1) | 50 (43.1) | |
| Ethnicity | ||||
| Malay | 95 (72.0) | 61 (75.3) | 81 (69.8) | |
| Chinese | 27 (20.5) | 10 (12.3) | 30 (25.9) | 0.066a |
| Indian | 9 (6.8) | 10 (12.3) | 4 (3.4) | |
| Others | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | |
| Household Income | ||||
| < RM 3000 (<USD 700) | 93 (70.5) | 54 (66.7) | 85 (73.3) | |
|
RM 3000 – 4999 (USD 700 – USD 1199) |
20 (15.2) | 12 (14.8) | 17 (14.7) | |
|
RM 5000 – 9999 (USD 1200 – USD 2399) |
15 (11.4) | 12 (14.8) | 11 (9.5) | 0.981a |
|
RM 10,000 – 15,000 (USD 2400 – USD 3599) |
3 (2.3) | 2 (2.5) | 2 (1.7) | |
|
> RM 15,000 (>USD 3600) |
1 (0.8) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (0.9) | |
| Marital Status | ||||
| Single | 8 (6.1) | 10 (12.3) | 7 (6.0) | |
| Married | 107 (81.1) | 62 (76.5) | 92 (79.3) | 0.480a |
| Widowed | 17 (12.9) | 9 (11.1) | 17 (14.7) | |
| Education Status | ||||
| None | 5 (3.8) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | 0.009a |
| Primary School | 18 (13.6) | 1 (1.2) | 13 (11.2) | |
aFisher’s exact test bMean (standard deviation) cANOVA