Table 2.
Comparison of socioeconomic demographics and CBD utilization based on type of arthritis between group comparisons of participants by type of arthritis and patterns of CBD utilization
| Osteoarthritis | Autoimmune arthritis | Rheumatoid arthritis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | P value |
| Age (y) | ||||
| 18–34 | 36 (17.6) | 25 (30.5) | 62 (43.7) | <.001* |
| 35–54 | 103 (50.5) | 36 (43.9) | 63 (44.4) | |
| 55–64 years old | 40 (19.6) | 12 (14.6) | 8 (5.6) | |
| 65 years and older | 25 (12.3) | 9 (11) | 9 (6.3) | |
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 125 (61.3) | 58 (70.7) | 89 (62.7) | .319 |
| Male | 68 (33.3) | 21 (25.6) | 50 (35.2) | |
| Prefer not to say | 11 (5.4) | 3 (3.7) | 3 (2.1) | |
| Ethnicity | ||||
| White | 171 (84) | 65 (79) | 121 (85) | .507 |
| Other ethnicity | 33 (16) | 17 (21) | 21 (15) | |
| Geographya | ||||
| Other country | 29 (14.2) | 14 (17.1) | 21 (14.8) | .458 |
| Midwest | 28 (13.7) | 16 (19.5) | 24 (16.9) | |
| Northeast | 45 (22.1) | 20 (24.4) | 30 (21.1) | |
| South | 60 (29.4) | 13 (15.9) | 31 (21.8) | |
| West | 42 (20.6) | 19 (23.2) | 36 (25.4) | |
| Education | ||||
| Associate degree | 44 (21.6) | 16 (19.5) | 25 (17.6) | .314 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 80 (39.2) | 38 (46.3) | 66 (46.5) | |
| Doctorate degree | 23 (11.3) | 11 (13.4) | 11 (7.7) | |
| High school | 44 (21.6) | 16 19.5) | 36 (25.4) | |
| Not disclosed | 13 (6.4) | 1 (1.2) | 4 (2.8) | |
| Income | ||||
| <$30,000 | 51 (25) | 18 (22) | 33 (23.2) | .608 |
| $30,000–$54,999 | 32 (15.7) | 18 (22) | 29 (20.4) | |
| $55,000–$99,999 | 59 (28.9) | 16 (19.5) | 39 (27.5) | |
| ≥100,000 | 38 (18.6) | 15 (18.3) | 25 (17.6) | |
| Rather not say | 24 (11.8) | 15 (18.3) | 16 (11.3) | |
Y years, $ US dollars, % percent, CBD cannabidiol
Statistical comparisons performed with Pearson chi-squared test between groups
*Significance determined as P<0.05
aGeographic regions based on US Census Divisions