Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants (n = 466)***

From: Conventional and complementary cancer treatments: where do conventional and complementary providers seek information about these modalities?

 

Total (n = 466)

Medical doctor (n = 142)

Nurse (n = 69)

Providers with dual training (n = 32)

Complementary therapist (n = 223)

p-value

n

(%)

n

(%)

n

(%)

n

(%)

n

(%)

 

Gender

          

< 0.001*

 Male

108

(27.5)

69

(51.5)

  

3

(12.5)

36

(19.3)

 

 Female

285

(72.5)

65

(48.5)

48

(100)

21

(87.5)

151

(80.7)

 

 Missing

73

 

8

 

21

 

8

 

36

  

Age, years

          

< 0.001**

 Mean age

373

48.7

127

45.4

45

51.2

24

52.2

177

50.1

 

 Missing

93

 

15

 

24

 

8

 

46

  

Education

          

< 0.001^

 Compulsory

2

(0.5)

      

2

(1.1)

 

 Middle level

33

(8.4)

      

33

(17.6)

 

 University up to 4 years

112

(28.4)

  

23

(46.9)

11

(44.0)

78

(41.7)

 

 University more than 4 years

235

(59.5)

123

(91.1)

26

(53.1)

14

(56.0)

73

(39.0)

 

 PhD

13

(3.3)

12

(8.9)

    

1

(0.5)

 

 Missing

71

 

8

 

20

 

7

 

36

  

Profession*

 Oncology doctor

27

(5.8)

27

(100)

       

 Family physician

118

(25.3)

116

(99.1)

  

1 a

(1.8)

   

 Oncology nurse

89

(19.1)

  

69

(77.5)

20

(22.5)

   

 Acupuncturist

150

(32.2)

    

25

(16.7)

125

(83.3)

 

 Massage therapist

82

(17.6)

    

6

(7.3)

76

(92.7)

 

 Reflexologist/zonetherapist

35

(7.5)

    

1

(2.9)

34

(97.1)

 

Clinical practice

          

< 0.001^

 Full time health provider

287

(72.1)

121

(89.6)

38

(77.6)

18

(72.0)

110

(58.2)

 

 Part time health provider

92

(23.1)

11

(8.1)

10

(20.4)

5

(20.0)

66

(34.9)

 

 Other (students or retired persons)

19

(4.8)

3

(2.2)

1

(2.2)

2

(8.0)

13

(6.9)

 

 Missing

68

 

7

 

20

 

7

 

34

  

Patient visits per week

          

< 0.001*

 1–19 patients

131

(33.8)

10

(7.6)

27

(57.4)

4

(16.0)

90

(48.6)

 

 20–39 patients

121

(31.2)

28

(21.4)

17

(36.2)

5

(20.0)

71

(38.4)

 

 40 or more patients

136

(35.1)

93

(71.0)

3

(6.4)

16

(64.0)

24

(13.0)

 

 Missing

78

 

11

 

22

 

7

 

38

  

Cancer patient visits per week

          

< 0.001^

 1–19 cancer patients

361

(92.1)

125

(92.6)

31

(64.6)

23

(92.0)

182

(98.9)

 

 20 and more patients

31

(7.9)

10

(7.4)

17

(35.4)

2

(8.0)

2

(1.1)

 

 Missing

74

 

7

 

21

 

7

 

39

  

Location

          

0.005*

 Rural area

118

(29.7)

56

(41.5)

7

(14.6)

3

(12.0)

52

(27.5)

 

 Small city. Village (up to 50.000 inhabitants)

153

(38.5)

44

(32.6)

23

(47.9)

12

(48.0)

74

(39.2)

 

 Large city (> 50.000 inhabitants)

126

(31.7)

35

(25.9)

18

(37.5)

10

(40.0)

63

(33.3)

 

 Missing

69

 

7

 

21

 

7

 

34

  
  1. * Pearson’s chi-square test
  2. ** One way Anova test
  3. ^Fisher’s exact test
  4. *** Due to multiple response on one or more variables, the analyzed numbers do not always add up to the total number
  5. a These add to > 32 because providers have more than one area of training