Skip to main content

Table 1 Participant demographics and other characteristics

From: Understanding the role of scientific evidence in consumer evaluation of natural health products for osteoarthritis an application of the means end chain approach

Item Everyone (N = 25) High (N = 13) Low (N = 12) p-value
Gender 19 (76) 10 (77) 9 (75) 1a
Female, N (%)
Mean Age in years (range) 58.8 (42–78) 55.08 (42–78) 62.92 (43–78) 0.100 b
Ethnicity, N (%)     0.422b
North American 10 (40) 6 (46) 4 (40)  
European 13 (52) 5 (38) 8 (62)  
Other 6 (24) 4 (67) 2 (33)  
At least some college as highest education, N (%) 15 (60) 9 (69) 6 (50) 0.428a
Annual household net income less than $50,000 d N (%) 14 (56) 7 (54) 7 (58) 1a
Have Extended health insurance, N (%) 12 (48) 6 (46) 6 (50) 1a
Use of NHPs to treat Osteoarthritis longer than 6 months N (%) 21 (84) 9 (69) 12 (100) 0.096 a
Mean importance of scientific evidence rating (0 = unimportant, 10 = very important) (standard deviation) 8 (2.3) 8 (2.6) 7.9 (2.1) 0.931c
Mean overall health rating (0 = worst, 10 = best) (standard deviation) 7.2 (1.2) 7.0 (1) 7.5 (1.4) 0.322 c
Mean pain scale visual analogue scale, 0 = worst, 10 = best (standard deviation) 6.7 (1.8) 6.2 (2.0) 6.9 (1.6) 0.328c
Joints affected d N (%)
Upper extremity 4 (21) 1 (10) 3 (33) 0.270b
Lower extremity 12 (63) 8 (80) 4 (44)  
Other 3 (16) 1 (10) 2 (22)  
Total joints affected 19 (100) 10 (100) 9 (100)  
Recruitment location b – N (%)
Senior community centre 5 (20) 1 (20) 4 (80) 0.2505 b
Online community website 17 (68) 11 (65) 6 (35)  
Health food store 2 (8) 1 (50) 1 (50)  
Natural Health Products Used – N (%)
Glucosamine 25 (100) 13 (100) 12 (100)  
Chondroitin e 18 (72) 8 (62) 10 (83)  
MSM 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (83)  
Bromelain 4 (16) 0 (0) 4 (33)  
  1. Caption: a: Fisher test, b: Chi-square test, c: unpaired t-test; d: four participants did not indicate their income; e: chondroitin products were almost always in combination with glucosamine. All tests were performed using Prism GraphPad version 5.0 for Windows. Participants could indicate more than one anatomical joint; five participants did not indicate an affected anatomical joint.