Volume 6(3); June

< Previous     Next >

Article Contents

Osong Public Health Res Perspect > Volume 6(3); 2015
Yoon, Park, Chu, Choi, Lee, and Lee: A Study on the Characteristics of Infrequent and Frequent Outpatients Visiting Korean Traditional Medical Facilities

Abstract

Objectives

This study was intended to analyze the characteristics of infrequent and frequent outpatients visiting Korean medical facilities, and find the related variables of frequent users.

Methods

The data source was the Report on the Usage and Consumption of Korean Medicine (2011) published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. We analyzed outpatient data using SAS 9.2.

Results

As much as 46.6% of the patients used Korean medical services over 11 times in 3 months. The proportion of frequent users increased depending on age, and their proportion was high in the low-income and low-education group. People with musculoskeletal disease, stroke, hypertension, and obesity were more likely to use Korean medical services. In general, patients were satisfied with their treatment, with frequent outpatients being more satisfied than infrequent outpatients. In logistic regression analysis, age and musculoskeletal disease were significant determinants of frequency of use of Korean medical services.

Conclusion

Age, musculoskeletal disease, and specific diseases were highly associated with frequent Korean medical utilization.

Keywords

frequent users; Korean medicine; medical utilization; outpatient

Introduction

It is well-known that the major factors that affect the usage of medical facilities are health insurance, education, private health insurance, disease, treatment rate, and satisfaction [1–6]. In addition to these factors, Korea has a unique situation in which consumers can choose between two competing medical facilities available, namely, Korean Traditional Medicine (KTM) and Western medicine. The two facilities are thoroughly divided and undergo differential application of health insurance by disease, treatment methods, and the amount of medical expenditure, so that the consumers can choose either facility with consideration of these factors. Chronic illness is characterized by the need for need long-term treatments, and thus, health insurance and medical expenses can be a major factor according to the economic status of the consumer.
KTM involves applying a unique life aspect and medical theories to the treatment and is known to be comprehensive, accessed as the primary facility, and effective for treating chronic and geriatric illness. The use of KTM is known to be characterized by culture, religion, race, sex, region, and diseases [7,8]. Previous studies have shown that women, elderly individuals, low-income, more-educated, married, patients with musculoskeletal diseases (e.g., arthritis, backache, and frozen shoulders), stroke, gastroenteric troubles, and tonic medicine takers are more likely to use KTM [9–11]. The major reasons why they use KTM facilities are subjective expectation of treatment and introduction to KTM facilities by previous visitors [9–11].
This study aims to compare the characteristics of outpatients of the KTM facility by frequency. The authors had interest in understanding the factors of frequent users of this facility. Related data on the outpatients were selected from the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare's Report (KMOH's Report) on the Usage and Consumption of Korean Medicine in 2011 [10]. The studies on the usage of KTM covered characteristics by sex, age, region, and disease [12–15]. The study patients are elderly individuals [16], patients with chronic illness [17,18], and patients with breast cancer [19]. No previous studies have compared outpatients of KTM by frequency, with specific focus on the frequent users of KTM. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify KTM users' sociodemographic characteristics, status of visiting medical facilities, major diseases and treatments, methods and treatment effect by disease, and satisfaction level. It is important to identify the status of KTM users, compare outpatients by frequency, and the factors of frequent users in developing appropriate policy in KTM.

Materials and methods

2.1 Study population

This study used data from the KMOH's Report on the Usage and Consumption of Korean Traditional Medicine in 2011 [10]. This report provides the basic statistics for KMOH's policy on KTM by investigating the status of KTM utilization and consumption of herbal medicine in Korea. The study included sociodemographic factors of inpatients and outpatients of KTM facilities, factors of medical service utilization and user's recognition, and use of KTM facilities for the past 3 months. The study was conducted from August 25 to September 30, 2011. Of the total 12,250 KTM facilities in Korea, 471 KTM facilities (171 KTM hospitals and 300 KTM clinics) were selected by multistage stratified sampling by region and institution type. During the investigation, a total of 5607 inpatients (n = 1681) and outpatients (n = 3926) were interviewed. We analyzed a total of 2583 outpatients in this study. The remaining outpatients did not provide a response and were thus excluded from the analysis.

2.2 Data analysis

We classified the frequency based on the number of visits to the KTM facility for the 3-month period. Frequency varied from one time to more than 60 times. We divided the study patients into three groups, namely, frequent, infrequent, and middle visitors, or upper 31.07%, lower 35.92%, and others, respectively. Frequent visitors visited KTM facility for more than 11 times and infrequent visitors visited the facility for one to three times. We analyzed the sociodemographic characteristics of the two groups by sex, age, marital status, education, and income. The two groups were also analyzed in terms of the medical institution preferred, disease and treatment method, treatment effect, satisfaction level, and side effect. A Chi-square analysis was conducted to understand the distribution of each variable. For the frequent visitors group, logistic regression models were applied to analyze the factors for using KTM facilities. Model 1 was adjusted for sociodemographic variable and medical institution preferred and Model 2 was adjusted for an additional 25 disease variables with the existing Model 1 variables. SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for data analysis and the level of significance is 5% [20].

Results

3.1 Sociodemographic characteristics

Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of total, infrequent, and frequent visitors to KTM. A total of 2583 outpatients visited KTM facilities [766 men (29.7%) and 1817 women (70.3%)]. Most of the these visitors were in their 20s to 70s. Frequent visitors were in their 40s to 70s, whereas infrequent visitors were in their 20s to 50s. A majority of the visitors were married (1831 persons, 71.0%) and high-school and college graduates (1699 persons, 66.1%). They had jobs (1205 persons, 47.0%) and had an income of <1000–4000 USD and were covered by residence-based health insurance (2426 persons, 94.2%). There was statistically significant difference between the two groups in age, marital status, education, employment status, income, and health insurance (p < 0.0001). In short, there were significant differences between infrequent visitors and frequent visitors in all the sociodemographic variables with exception of age.

3.2 Subjective health status, clinics/hospitals, and diseases

In Table 2, the two groups (frequent and infrequent visitors) were compared by subjective health status, preferred medical institution, preferred KTM facility, and disease. There was a statistical difference (p < 0.0001) between the two groups in subjective health status: “Good” (659 persons, 25.5%), “Average” (1078 persons, 41.8%), and “Bad” (687 persons, 26.6%). Most individuals preferred to visit hospitals/clinics (1692 persons, 65.6%) than visiting KTM clinics (563 persons, 21.8%; p < 0.0001). However, there was no statistical difference in the preferred KTM facilities (KTM clinics or hospitals) between the two groups [KTM clinics (1752 persons, 74.1%) and KTM hospitals (458 persons, 19.4%); p = 0.2405].
Major diseases/symptoms were arthritis (548 persons, 21.2%), gastroenteric trouble (304 persons, 11.8%), sprained ankle (427 persons, 16.5%), backache (784 persons, 30.4%), muscular wound (542 persons, 21.0%), and lumbar sprain (481 persons, 18.6%). There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in arthritis (p < 0.0001), backache (p < 0.0001), lumbar sprain (p = 0.0154), frozen shoulder (p < 0.0001), and herbal tonics (p = 0.0035), but no statistically significant difference in gastroenteric trouble (p = 0.8061), sprained ankle (p = 0.0884), and cold (p = 0.7201).

3.3 Treatment methods of KTM

Treatment methods of KTM are summarized in Table 3 and compared between the two groups. The KTM visitors were treated with acupuncture and physical therapy (947 persons, 39.8%), herbal medicine and acupuncture (604 persons, 25.2%), acupuncture and moxa cautery (305 persons, 12.8%), acupuncture and cupping treatment (273 persons, 11.5%), and most took combined treatment. There was a statistically significant difference in these treatment methods between the two groups (p < 0.0017).

3.4 Treatment methods of KTM for 12 major diseases and symptoms

The treatment methods of KTM for 12 major diseases and symptoms were summarized and compared between the two groups (Table 4). Acupuncture was the most common treatment for arthritis (15.6%), backache (601 persons, 23.3%), shock (135 persons, 52%), gastroenteric trouble (180 persons, 7.0%), frozen shoulder (108 persons, 4.2%), sprained ankle (249 persons, 9.6%), muscular would (357 persons, 13.8%), lumbar sprain (3.5 persons, 11.8%), and aftereffects from traffic accident (95 persons, 3.7%). Herbal medicine was the most common treatment for cold (73 persons, 2.8%), somatotype correction (71 persons, 2.8%), and herbal tonics (141 persons, 5.5%). These diseases showed statistically significant difference in treatment methods between the two groups.

3.5 Treatment effect

Treatment effects are summarized and compared between the two groups in Table 5. Herbal medicine showed “very effective” (323 persons, 35.1%) and “slightly effective” (364 persons, 39.5%) treatment effects, and there was a statistical difference between the two groups (p < 0.0002). Compounded herbal medicine, acupuncture, and moxa cautery were “slightly effective” (167 persons, 46.7%; 421 persons, 44.6%, respectively), and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001 vs. p = 0.0040). Cupped treatment was “slightly effective” (420 persons, 46.1%), chiropractic treatment was “very effective” (94 persons, 42.0%), physical therapy was “slightly effective” (771 persons, 48.1%), and showed statistically significant difference (p = 0.0047, p = 0.0241, p < 0.0001). The effect of each treatment method was classified as follows: “slightly effective,” “very effective,” “little effective,” and “not effective.” There were significant differences by treatment method.

3.6 Satisfaction level and side effects

Table 6 summarizes the satisfaction level and side effects and compares the two groups. A total of 559 patients who visited KTM were “very satisfied” with treatment (21.7%); 521 patients reported “satisfied” (59.1%), and 382 reported “average” (15.2%). There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001). 46 persons (1.8%) experienced side effects, and there was no difference between the two groups. The major side effect reported was rash/itching (19 persons, 38.8%), followed by stomachache/diarrhea (9 persons, 18.4%) and there was no difference between the two groups.

3.7 Factors on frequency utilizing traditional Korean medical hospitals/clinics

Table 7 shows two different models based on different confounding factors that estimated exp(β) of frequent and infrequent users, respectively, with reference to each variable.
In Model 1, there was no difference among sexes [women: odds ratio (OR) = 0.84, p = 0.1293], marital status (single: OR = 1.18, p = 0.3787; widowed: OR = 1.12, p = 0.5124; divorced: OR = 1.39, p = 0.3937; separated: OR = 5.52, p = 0.1205; other: OR = 0.13, p = 0.0762), education (elementary school: OR = 0.86, p = 0.4850; middle school: OR = 0.78, p = 0.3180; high school: OR = 0.67, p = 0.0977; college: OR = 0.83, p = 0.4853; other: OR = 0.63, p = 0.7242), but there was increase in frequency of visits in those over 40 years of age (under 10s: OR = 2.36, p = 0.083; 20s: OR = 1.26, p = 0.3749; 30s: OR = 1.69, p = 0.0665; 40s: OR = 2.93; p = 0.0002; 50s: OR = 3.29, p < 0.0001; 60s: OR = 5.45, p = 0.0001; 70s: OR = 6.64, p < 0.0001; 80s and above: OR = 6.18, p = 0.0006), and decrease in frequency of visits if the individual is employed (with job: OR = 0.57, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in frequency among income (1000–2000 USD: OR = 1.00, p = 0.9952; 2001–3000 USD: OR = 0.89, p = 0.4497; 3001–4000 USD: OR = 0.88, p = 0.4678; 4001–5000 USD: OR = 0.77, p = 0.1741; >5000 USD: OR = 1.20, p = 0.3333) and health insurance (residence based: OR = 1.05, p = 0.5687; Medicare Class 1: OR = 1.61, p = 0.0862; Medicare Class 2: OR = 0.95, p = 0.8789; Other: OR = 1.12, p = 0.7853).
In Model 2, sex was not statistically significant [exp(β) of women = 0.82, p = 0.0645] and age was statistically significant in those aged 40 and above [40s, 2.67 (p = 0.0014); 50s, 2.79 (p = 0.0012); 60s, 4.13 (p < 0.0001); 70s, 5.24 (p < 0.0001); and 80s, 4.70 (p = 0.0047)]. Marital status (1.11–0.98), income (0.76–1.31), and health insurance (0.79–1.47) were not significant, but the variable job showed significance (0.56, p < 0.0001). Arthritis (2.15, p < 0.0001), backache (1.86, p < 0.0001), stroke (4.89, p < 0.0001), atopy (2.60, p = 0.0398), frozen shoulder (1.61, p = 0.0294), sprained ankle (0.65, p = 0.0079), lumbar sprain (1.63, p = 0.0004), diet (2.30, p = 0.0041), skin care (2.29, p = 0.0034), herbal tonics (0.5, p = 0.0145), and traffic accident 2.89 (p < 0.0001) were all statistically significant.
In Model 2, there was no statistical difference in frequency between sexes (women: OR = 0.82, p = 0.0645). Frequency increased in those aged 40 and above (under 10s: OR = 1.84, p = 0.2790; 20s: OR = 1.16, p = 0.5910; 30s: OR = 1.47, p = 0.0665; 40s: OR = 2.67, p = 0.0014; 50s: OR = 2.79, p = 0.0012; 60s: OR = 4.13, p < 0.0001; 70s: OR = 5.24, p < 0.0001; >80s: OR = 4.70, p = 0.0047). There was no difference among marital status (single: OR = 1.13, p = 0.5395; widowed: OR = 1.11, p = 0.5599; divorced: OR = 1.47, p = 0.3342; separated: OR = 6.78, p = 0.0855; and other: OR = 0.12, p = 0.0671), education (elementary school: OR = 0.95, p = 0.8086; middle school: OR = 0.93, p = 0.7758; high school: OR = 0.77, p = 0.3018; college: OR = 0.97, p = 0.9145; other: OR = 0.98, p = 0.9863). The hired persons tended to decrease in frequency (OR = 0.56, p < 0.0001), but there was no difference among income status (1000–2000 USD: OR = 1.03, p = 0.8483; 2001–3000 USD: OR = 0.96, p = 0.8047; 3001–4000 USD: OR = 0.93, p = 0.7014; 4001–5000 USD: OR = 0.76, p = 0.165; and >5000 USD: OR = 1.31, p = 0.1841) and among health insurance (residence based: OR = 1.07, p = 0.4817; Medicare Class 1: OR = 1.47, p = 0.1709; Medicare Class 2: OR = 0.79, p = 0.5461; and Other: OR = 0.81, p = 0.6111).
Persons with arthritis (OR = 2.15, p < 0.0001), backache (OR = 1.86, p < 0.0001), stroke (OR = 4.89, p < 0.0001), atopy (OR = 2.60, p = 0.0398), frozen shoulder (OR = 1.61, p = 0.0294), lumbar sprain (OR = 1.63, p = 0.0004), diet (OR = 2.30, p = 0.0041), skin care (OR = 2.29, p = 0.0344), and traffic accident (OR = 2.89, p < 0.0001) tended to increase in frequency, but those with sprained ankle (OR = 0.65, p = 0.0079) and herbal tonics (OR = 0.59, p = 0.0145) decreased in frequency.

Discussion

The general factors affecting medical utilization are income, education, private health insurance, and age along with the preference for traditional medicine [1–6]. In addition, culture, religion, region, and diseases (muscular would and breast cancer) are known to be major factors that play a role in deciding the medical institution [7,8]. Especially in Korea, where Western medicine and KTM coexist, comparative advantage of treatment methods by disease exits [21]. Persons visit KTM to treat muscular wounds such as backache, arthritis, frozen shoulder, herbal tonics, gastroenteric trouble, and stroke [9–11]. Further study is necessary whether these diseases/symptoms are more effectively treated in KTM.
This study has utilized data on the KTM facilities from the KMOH's Report on the Usage and Consumption of KTM in 2011 [10]. The reports were prepared to formulate evidence-based KTM policies by KMOH in 2008, 2011, and 2014, respectively. The report contains data on 5607 inpatients and outpatients visiting KTM from August to September 2011. Among them, 3926 outpatients were selected. We analyzed a total of 2583 outpatients in this study. The remaining outpatients did not provide a response and were thus excluded from the analysis.

4.1 Comparison of general characteristics of study patients

Women tended to visit KTM more in both infrequent and frequent outpatients groups. Patients within the age group between 40s and 60s frequently visited KTM facilities, with higher frequencies for those in their 40s. This rate decreases for those aged 50 and above; however, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001). A total of 1831 married persons (71.0%) visited KTM, followed by 409 single persons (15.9%), and there was a statistical difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001). When analyzed by education levels, high-school and college graduates constituted more than half of the population (66.1%) with statistical significance (p < 0.0001). Job status showed a statistical difference (p < 0.0001). When analyzed by monthly income, the “under 4000 USD” formed the majority (77.2%) with a statistical difference (p < 0.0001). Individuals with Medicare insurance visited KTM often (p < 0.0001, Table 2).
Sociodemographic characteristics showed the following individuals frequently visited the KTM facilities: women, individuals in the age group between 40 and 60 years, married, high-school graduate and above, monthly income of 4000 USD, and those with residence-based and workplace-based insurance. All the variables were significant between infrequent and frequent users of KTM with exception of age. These results corresponded with the previous studies of Lee et al [5], Lee et al [12], and Choi et al [13], and Lee et al [14]. In particular, the subjective health status was significant between the two groups with patients reporting the following status: “very good” (80 persons, 3.1%), “good” (659 persons, 25.5%), “average” (1078 persons, 41.8%), “bad” (687 persons, 26.6%), “very bad” (78 persons, 3%) (p < 0.0001). Most of the individuals (1692 persons, 65.6%) utilized the medical institutions with a significant statistical difference (p < 0.0001). KTM facilities were used in KTM clinics (1752 person, 74.1%) and KTM hospitals (458 persons, 19.4%) with no statistical difference.
Major diseases/symptoms treated in KTM were arthritis (548 persons, 21.2%), gastroenteric trouble (304 persons, 11.8%), sprained ankle (427 persons, 16.5%), backache (784 persons, 30.4%), muscular would (54 persons, 21.0%), lumbar sprain (481 persons, 18.6%), and herbal tonics (636 persons, 24.6%). Arthritis (p < 0.0001), backache (p < 0.0001), and herbal tonics (p = 0.0350) showed statistically significant differences (Table 2). Most KCM visitors (1817 persons, 70.4%) rated themselves as “above average” in subjective health status. The KCM visitors utilize not only disease treatment but also treatment related to skin care, diet/obesity, somatotype correction, herbal tonics, and height growth.
Subjective health status, medical institutions utilized, KTM facilities, major diseases/symptoms corresponded with the results of previous studies [12–14]. However, the difference between the infrequent and frequent outpatients could be compared, which was not covered in the previous studies.

4.2 Treatment methods, effects, and satisfaction level

Treatments methods were herbal medicine, acupuncture and moxa cautery, compounded herbal medicine, physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, and cupping treatment. In real practice, these treatments are combined to treat patients. Most of KCM methods used a combination of herbal medicine with acupuncture, acupuncture with moxa cautery, acupuncture with cupping treatment, and acupuncture with physical therapy, which had a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0017) between the two groups (Table 3).
The most frequently utilized treatments in KTM were herbal medicine, compounded herbal medicine, acupuncture, moxa cautery, cupping treatment, chiropractic treatment, and physical therapy. Acupuncture was mainly used for arthritis, backache, and traffic accident. Herbal medicine was used for cold, somatotype correction, and herbal tonics. There was a statistically significant difference by disease (Table 4).
Except for chiropractic treatment, the other KCM treatments were rated in the following order: “slightly effective,” “very effective,” “average,” “little effective,” and “not effective.” All the treatments for infrequent KTM users showed significant differences in compounded herbal medicine, with the exception of compounded medicine (Table 5). This suggested that the KTM patients regarded KTM treatment as effective, but not very effective, and there were no differences between the two groups, which could not be compared due to lack of similar studies.
More than of half of the patients (80.8%) were reported satisfaction with the treatment they received. The satisfactory levels were rated in the following order (Table 6): “satisfied” (1521 persons, 59.1%), “very satisfied” (559 persons, 21.7%), “average” (392 persons, 15.2%), “unsatisfied” (27 persons, 1.1%), and “very unsatisfied” (3 persons, 0.1%); however, the intensity of satisfaction was low, which coincided with the treatment effect (i.e., not very effective reported in Table 5). There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.0001). Infrequent users rated their satisfactory levels as follows: “satisfied” (53.5%), followed by “very satisfied” (44.0%); by contrast, frequent users were “very satisfied” (56.0%), followed by “satisfied” (46.6%). Frequent users were more satisfied compared with the infrequent users, which suggested that the more satisfied individuals more frequently utilized the KCM.
A total of 46 individuals (1.8%) experienced side effects, which had no difference between the two groups. Rash/itching (19 persons, 38.8%) and stomachache/diarrhea (9 persons, 18.4%) were the major symptoms and there was no difference between the two groups. These side effects could be observed when taking the herbal medicine; however, most studies reported no side effects [22,23] or 0.1% side effects only [24]. The side effect rate of 1.8% (46/2583) in this study was thus higher than other related studies. Most of these were dermatologic and gastroenteric side effects. There was only one person among 48 persons who experienced malfunction of liver, which was associated with hepatotoxicity.

4.3 Factors affecting the frequency of usage

Most studies on medical utilization were based on the Western medicine and interested study groups, whereas no study on KTM is conducted, and therefore, related data to be applied in various policy and strategy development are rare. The study on the utilization of medical service is essential to identify factors to draw individuals' attention on what kind of services were utilized as well as to establish public health policies and plans [25].
This study adjusted confounding factors and prepared Model 1 and Model 2 with the regard to men, individuals in their 10s, married, no education, nonhired, income under 1000 USD, workplace-based health insurance, infrequent outpatients, and with no diseases, and analyzed the factors of frequent visitors to KTM facilities. Model 1 contained sex, age, marital status, education, job, income, and health insurance and conducted logistic regression and calculated exp(β). There were no differences in age, marital status, education, and health insurance, but exp(β) of those in their 40s compared with those 10s was 2.93 (p = 0.0002), exp(β) of those in 50s was 3.29 (p < 0.0001), exp(β) of those in 60s was 5.45 (p < 0.0001), exp(β) of those in 70s was 6.64 (p < 0.0001), and exp(β) of those in 80s was 6.18 (p = 0.0006). Nonhired persons' exp(β) showed a significant difference of 0.57 (p < 0.0001), compared with the hired (Table 7). Our results show that the frequent users of KTM facilities in their 40s to 80s utilized the facilities 2.93 to 6.65 times more, compared with those under 10 years of age. Nonhired persons used KTM less by 0.57 times than the hired.
Model 2 included 25 more diseases as variables in addition to the variables in Model 1. However, the results obtained were similar to those in Model 1. There was no significant difference in sex, marital status, education, income, and health insurance. There was no difference in age, marital status, education, and health insurance, but the exp(β) of those in their 40s compared with those under 10s was 2.93 (p = 0.0002), and the exp(β) of those in their 50s (3.29, p < 0.0001), 60s (5.45, p < 0.0001), 70s (6.64, p < 0.0001), and 80s (6.18, p = 0.0006) showed difference. Nonhired persons' exp(β) showed a significant difference of 0.56 (p < 0.0001) compared with the hired (Table 7). Our results show that the frequent users of KTM facilities in their 40s to 80s utilized the facilities 2.93 to 6.65 times more, compared with those under 10 years of age. Nonhired persons used KTM less by 0.57 times than the hired. Compared with those under the age of 10, the exp(β) of those in their 40s (2.67, p = 0.0014), 50s (2.79, p = 0.0012), 60s (4.13, p < 0.0001), 70s (5.24, p < 0.0001), and 80s (4.70, p = 0.0047) showed difference.
The following diseases/symptoms showed significant difference [exp(β) values]: arthritis, 2.15 (p < 0.0001); backache, 1.86 (p < 0.0001); stroke, 4.89 (p < 0.0001); atopy, 2.60 (p = 0.0398); frozen shoulder, 1.61 (p = 0.00294); sprained ankle, 0.65 (p = 0.0079); lumbar sprain, 1.53 (p = 0.0004); diet, 2.30 (p = 0.0041); skin care, 2.29 (p = 0.0344); herbal tonics, 0.59 (p = 0.0145); and traffic accident, 2.89 (p < 0.0001; Table 7).
This indicates that the frequent users of KTM facilities in their 40s to 80s utilized the facilities 2.67 to 5.24 times more, compared with those under 10 years of age. Nonhired persons used KTM less by 0.56 times than the hired. Persons with arthritis, backache, stroke, atopy, frozen shoulder, lumbar sprain, diet, skin care, and traffic accident used KTM facilities by 1.61–4.89 times, whereas persons with sprained ankle and herbal tonics used less by 0.59–0.65 times.
The KTM facilities were more utilized by aged, persons with arthritis, backache, and stroke, whereas the hired persons, patients with sprained ankle and herbal tonics used significantly utilized less KCM facilities. This corresponded to the results reported by Oh et al [17] and Lee et al [18], however, a direct comparison was limited. For this study, we analyzed the data by specific disease, whereas the two previous studies included a comprehensive chronic disease.
Previous studies on KTM service utilization included elderly individuals [16], public health center visitors of a region [17], National Health and Nutrition Survey data [18], and breast cancer patients [19]. Furthermore, the dependent variable of these studies was chronic disease, not specific diseases as is the case in this study. Further study should be followed with the results of this study to compare frequency by disease, so as to implement proper disease treatment strategies and improve efforts to treat chronic diseases in the context of Korea where the Western medicine and KTM coexist.
A comparative study detailing the advantages of treating chronic diseases with either Western medicine or KTM is important for maximization of medical resources, and minimization of medical expenses [21]. In addition, KTM needs to improve its service and facilities with a grasp of frequent visitors to their facilities [26].

Conflicts of interest

All contributing authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study is based on the KMOH 2011 Report on Usage of Korean Medicine. The authors thank the Division of Korean Traditional Medicine Policy, KMOH.

Notes

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

1. Jin S., Lim H.A., Cho M.D.. Inequality in the medical care utilization and medical expenditure for the patients with chronical Illness. Korean J Health Econ Policy 18(3):2012 Sep;79-101. [In Korean].

2. Son K.A., Kim Y.S., Hong M.H., Jeong M.A.. Analysis of the continuity of outpatient among adult patients with hypertension and its influential factors in Korea. J Korea Acad Industr Coop Soc 11(6):2010 Jun;2161-2168. [In Korean].
crossref
3. Textbook of Preventive Korean Medicine Compilation Committee . Preventive Korean medicine and public health. 2013. Gyechukmunhwasa; Seoul (Korea): [In Korean].

4. Jung H., Park H., Lee S.. Nationwide study on the characteristics of patients visiting and using Korean medical facilities by sex. J Korean Med 35(1):2014 Mar;75-87. [In Korean].
crossref
5. Lee E., Lee S., Song A., Yoon J., Choi S., Chong M.. A study on the characteristics of patients with musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) among outpatients using Korean medical institutes: based on the Ministry of Health and Welfare's 2011 report on usage of Korean medicine. J Soc Prev Korean Med 18(2):2014 Aug;31-45. [In Korean].

6. Kang S.J., Lee Y.J.. Patterns of Korean traditional medical services utilization in Daegu. Korean J Orient Prev Med 14(2):2010 Aug;67-75. [In Korean].

7. Navo M.A., Phan J., Vaughan C.. An assessment of the utilization of complementary and alternative medication in women with gynecologic or breast malignancies. J Clin Oncol 22(4):2004 Feb;671-677.
crossref
8. Ashikaga T., Bosompra K., O'Brien P., Nelson L.. Use of complementary and alternative medicine by breast cancer patients: prevalence, patterns and communication with physicians. Support Care Cancer 10(7):2002 Oct;542-548.
crossref
9. Ministry of Health and Welfare . Reports about usage and consumption of Korean medicine. 1998. Ministry of Health and Welfare; Seoul (Korea): [In Korean].

10. Ministry of Health and Welfare . Reports about usage and consumption of Korean Medicine. 2011. Ministry of Health and Welfare; Seoul (Korea): [In Korean].

11. Ministry of Health and Welfare . Reports about usage and consumption of Korean medicine. 2014. Ministry of Health and Welfare; Sejong (Korea): [In Korean].

12. Lee S., Jo J., Kim H., Park H., Yang J.M., Choi S.Y.. Nationwide study on the usage and characteristics of patients visiting Korean medical facilities. Korean J Orient Prev Med Soc 17(2):2013 Aug;29-46. [In Korean].

13. Choi S.Y., Shin H.K., Park H., Lee S.. An analysis of patients using Korean medicine clinics: analysis of outpatients and inpatients by age, sex and regions. Korean J Orient Prev Med Soc 16(2):2012 Aug;67-81. [In Korean].

14. Lee W.C., Choi S.Y., Lee S.. Comparison of service usage of outpatients at Korean medical clinics by regions and gender. J Soc Prev Korean Med 18(3):2014 Dec;41-55. [In Korean].

15. Jang Y.M.. Variation analysis of medical service utilization in oriental medicine frequent disease of rural area. J Korea Acad Industr Coop Soc 14(2):2013 Feb;713-720. [In Korean].
crossref
16. Park J.E., Kwon S.. Determinants of the utilization of oriental medical services by the elderly. J Korean Oriental Med 32(1):2011 Jan;97-108. [In Korean].

17. Oh J.S., Han D., Im M.H., Hong Y.S., Lee Y.H., Noh H.I.. The use of traditional Korean medicine and its affecting factors among patients with chronic disease in Jeju province, Korea. Korean J Orient Prev Med Soc 13(3):2009 Dec;55-71. [In Korean].

18. Lee H.J., Yoo W., Chung S.K.. Determining factors for the use of oriental healthcare services for survey subjects with chronic illness: 2005 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Korean J Orient Prev Med Soc 15(3):2011 Dec;115-125. [In Korean].

19. Han D.W., Kim Y.Y., Choi S.J., Hwang H.H.. Determinants on Korean medicine use among breast cancer patients. Korean J Orient Prev Med Soc 16(3):2012 Dec;37-51. [In Korean].

20. Base SAS® 9.2 Procedures Guide

21. Yang H., Zhao Z., Wang M.. Advantage of traditional Chinese medicine and disease characteristics. J Tradit Chin Med 53(4):2012 Feb;285-287. [In Chinese].

22. Yun Y.J., Nah S.S., Park J.H.. Assessment of prescribed herbal medicine on liver function in Korea: a prospective observational study. J Altern Complement Med 14(9):2008 Nov;1131-1136.
crossref
23. Yang J.I., Lee K.H., Kim Y.S., Shin M.K., Yoo J.H., Chang G.T.. A report on liver function tests of 82 psoriasis patients taking herbal medication over 3 months. J Korean Orient Med 33(3):2012 Sep;95-104.

24. Sakuri M.. Perspective: herbal dangers. Nature 480(7378):2011 Dec;S97.
crossref
25. Kim H.K., Lee J.U., Park K.W., Moon O.R.. Regional variations in the cesarean section rate and its determination in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 25(3):1992 Sep;312-329.

26. Yoo W.K.. A study on recognition level of the people on oriental medical services and the need for its improvement. Korean J Orient Prev Med Soc 7(2):2003 Dec;45-64.

Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics of outpatients visiting Korean Traditional Medicine hospitals/clinics.
Variables Infrequent Frequent Total (%) p
Sex
Men 417 (54.4) 349 (45.6) 766 (29.7) 0.5879
Women 968 (53.3) 849 (46.7) 1817 (70.3)
Age (y)
Under 10s 17 (56.7) 13 (43.3) 30 (1.2) <0.0001
10s 96 (73.9) 34 (26.2) 130 (5.0)
20s 218 (74.4) 75 (25.6) 293 (11.3)
30s 295 (69.6) 129 (30.4) 424 (16.4)
40s 316 (57.1) 237 (42.9) 553 (21.4)
50s 226 (51.3) 215 (48.8) 441 (17.1)
60s 133 (33.5) 264 (66.5) 397 (15.4)
70s 76 (26.8) 208 (73.2) 284 (11.0)
≥80s 8 (25.8) 23 (74.2) 31 (1.2)
Marital status
Single 286 (69.9) 123 (30.1) 409 (15.9) <0.0001
Married 985 (53.8) 846 (46.2) 1831 (71.0)
Widowed 87 (30.2) 201 (69.8) 288 (11.2)
Divorced 15 (48.4) 16 (51.6) 31 (1.2)
Separated 1 (11.1) 8 (88.9) 9 (0.4)
Other 9 (90.0) 1 (10.0) 10 (0.4)
Education
None 46 (26.6) 127 (73.4) 173 (6.7) <0.0001
Elementary school 137 (35.3) 251 (64.7) 388 (15.1)
Middle school 140 (45.6) 167 (54.4) 307 (11.9)
High school 481 (60.4) 316 (39.7) 797 (31.0)
College 571 (63.3) 331 (36.7) 902 (35.1)
Other 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0) 4 (0.2)
Job
Yes 781 (64.8) 424 (35.2) 1205 (47.0) <0.0001
No 593 (43.6) 768 (56.4) 1361 (53.0)
Income (USD)
<1000 181 (34.1) 350 (65.9) 531 (20.7) <0.0001
1001–2000 270 (52.6) 243 (47.4) 513 (20.0)
2001–3000 314 (58.8) 220 (41.2) 534 (20.8)
3001–4000 247 (61.4) 155 (38.6) 402 (15.7)
4001–5000 194 (66.4) 98 (33.6) 292 (11.4)
>5000 168 (57.7) 123 (42.3) 291 (11.4)
Health insurance
Residence based 496 (51.4) 469 (48.6) 965 (37.5) <0.0001
Workplace based 828 (56.7) 633 (43.3) 1461 (56.7)
Medicare Class 1 25 (30.1) 58 (69.9) 83 (3.2)
Medicare Class 2 19 (50.0) 19 (50.0) 38 (1.5)
Others 15 (51.7) 14 (48.3) 29 (1.1)
Total (%) 1385 (53.6) 1198 (46.4) 2583 (100.0)

Data are presented as n (%).

Table 2
Subjective health status, utilized medical institutions, and diseases.
Variables Infrequent Frequent Total p
Subjective health status
Very good 56 (70.0) 24 (30.0) 80 (3.1) <0.0001
Good 429 (65.1) 230 (34.9) 659 (25.5)
Average 617 (57.2) 461 (42.8) 1078 (41.8)
Bad 256 (37.3) 431 (62.7) 687 (26.6)
Very bad 27 (34.6) 51 (65.4) 78 (3.0)
Medical institutions
Hospitals/clinics 983 (58.1) 709 (41.9) 1692 (65.6) <0.0001
Pharmacies 100 (69.4) 144 (30.6) 144 (5.6)
Korean Traditional Medicine clinics 221 (39.3) 563 (60.8) 563 (21.8)
Public health centers 4 (44.4) 9 (55.6) 9 (0.4)
Korean Traditional Medicine hospitals 63 (42.0) 87 (58.0) 150 (5.8)
Other 12 (60.0) 8 (40.0) 20 (0.8)
Korean Traditional Medicine institutions
Korean traditional clinics 911 (52.0) 841 (48.0) 1752 (74.1) 0.2405
Korean traditional hospitals 216 (47.2) 458 (52.8) 458 (19.4)
Dual clinicsa 56 (44.4) 126 (55.6) 126 (5.3)
Korean traditional pharmacies 5 (71.4) 2 (28.6) 7 (0.3)
Pharmacies 5 (50.0) 5 (50.0) 10 (0.4)
Acupuncture 6 (60.0) 4 (40.0) 10 (0.4)
Private institution 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04)
Diseases and symptoms
Hypertension 29 (2.1) 67 (5.6) 96 (3.7) <0.0001
Repressed anger and stress 49 (3.5) 49 (4.1) 98 (3.8) 0.4638
Infertility 4 (0.3) 5 (0.4) 9 (0.4) 0.5803
Arthritis 187 (13.5) 361 (30.1) 548 (21.2) <0.0001
Gastroenteric trouble 161 (11.6) 143 (11.9) 304 (11.8) 0.8061
Sprained ankle 245 (17.7) 182 (15.2) 427 (16.5) 0.0884
Backache 340 (24.6) 444 (37.1) 784 (30.4) <0.0001
Cold 114 (8.2) 94 (7.9) 208 (8.1) 0.7201
Muscular wound 309 (22.3) 233 (19.5) 542 (21.0) 0.0749
Diabetes 13 (0.9) 30 (2.5) 43 (1.7) 0.0019
Atopy 20 (1.4) 21 (1.8) 41 (1.6) 0.5311
Lumbar sprain 234 (16.9) 247 (20.6) 481 (18.6) 0.0154
Stroke 31 (2.2) 122 (10.2) 153 (5.9) <0.0001
Cancer 4 (0.3) 8 (0.7) 12 (0.5) 0.1578
Frozen shoulder 76 (5.5) 116 (9.7) 192 (7.4) <0.0001
Cramps 62 (4.5) 31 (2.6) 93 (3.6) 0.0102
Asthma 11 (0.8) 14 (1.2) 25 (1.0) 0.3324
Fracture 36 (2.6) 56 (6.7) 92 (3.6) 0.0045
Diet/obesity 49 (3.5) 41 (3.4) 90 (3.5) 0.8731
Skin care 25 (1.8) 17 (1.4) 42 (1.6) 0.4392
Somatotype correction 14 (1.0) 12 (1.0) 26 (1.0) 0.9814
Constitution improvement 85 (6.1) 64 (5.3) 149 (5.8) 0.3875
Herbal tonics 318 (23.0) 318 (26.5) 636 (24.6) 0.0350
Height growth 9 (0.7) 8 (0.7) 17 (0.7) 0.9551
Aftereffects from traffic accident 68 (4.9) 88 (7.4) 156 (6.0) 0.0096

Data are presented as n (%).

a Diagnosis and treatment conducted by physicians in (Western) hospital/clinics or practicing Korean Traditional Medicine and having obtained certification in both.

Table 3
Treatment of Korean Traditional Medicine.
Variables Infrequent Frequent Total p
Herbal medicine 24 (88.9) 3 (11.1) 27 (1.1) 0.0017
Herbal medicine + compounded herbal medicine 13 (76.5) 4 (23.5) 17 (0.7)
Herbal medicine + acupuncture 329 (54.7) 272 (45.3) 601 (25.2)
Herbal medicine + moxa cautery 5 (50.0) 5 (50.0) 10 (0.4)
Herbal medicine + cupping treatment 5 (55.6) 4 (44.4) 9 (0.4)
Herbal medicine + chiropractic treatment 3 (50.0) 3 (50.0) 6 (0.3)
Herbal medicine + physical therapy 17 (63.0) 10 (37.0) 27 (1.1)
Compounded herbal medicine 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04)
Compounded herbal medicine + acupuncture 29 (54.7) 24 (45.3) 53 (2.2)
Compounded herbal medicine + moxa cautery 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (0.1)
Compounded herbal medicine + physical therapy 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (0.1)
Acupuncture 20 (60.6) 13 (39.4) 33 (1.4)
Acupuncture + moxa cautery 129 (42.3) 176 (57.7) 305 (12.8)
Acupuncture + cupping treatment 145 (53.1) 128 (46.9) 273 (11.5)
Acupuncture + chiropractic treatment 14 (41.2) 20 (58.8) 34 (1.4)
Acupuncture + physical therapy 453 (47.8) 494 (52.2) 947 (39.8)
Acupuncture + other 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3 (0.1)
Moxa cautery + cupping treatment 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3 (0.1)
Moxa cautery + physical therapy 6 (60.0) 4 (40.0) 10 (0.4)
Cupping treatment + chiropractic treatment 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04)
Cupping treatment + physical therapy 4 (57.1) 3 (42.9) 7 (0.3)
Chiropractic treatment + physical therapy 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04)
Physical therapy 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 5 (0.2)
Physical therapy + other 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.1)
Other 2 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.1)

Data are presented as n (%).

Data contains multiple response (MR).

Table 4
Symptoms/diseases and treatments of outpatients in Korean Traditional Medicine hospitals/clinics.
Diseases and treatment Infrequent Frequent Total p
Arthritis 133 (9.6) 279 (23.3) 412 (16.0) <0.0001
Herbal medicine 20 (1.4) 59 (4.9) 79 (3.1) <0.0001
Compounded herbal medicine 12 (0.9) 28 (2.3) 40 (1.6) 0.0025
Acupuncture 129 (9.3) 275 (23.0) 404 (15.6) <0.0001
Moxa cautery 48 (3.5) 136 (11.4) 184 (7.1) <0.0001
Cupping treatment 40 (2.9) 133 (11.1) 173 (6.7) <0.0001
Chiropractic treatment 3 (0.2) 14 (1.2) 17 (0.7) 0.0028
Physical therapy 88 (6.4) 211 (17.6) 299 (11.6) <0.0001
Other 0 (0.0) 5 (0.4) 5 (0.2) 0.0161
Backache 267 (19.3) 352 (29.4) 619 (24.0) <0.0001
Herbal medicine 44 (3.2) 76 (6.3) 120 (4.7) 0.0001
Compounded herbal medicine 24 (1.7) 37 (3.2) 62 (2.4) 0.0172
Acupuncture 257 (18.6) 344 (28.7) 601 (23.3) <0.0001
Moxa cautery 80 (5.8) 157 (131) 237 (9.2) <0.0001
Cupping treatment 115 (8.3) 187 (15.6) 302 (11.7) <0.0001
Chiropractic treatment 28 (2.0) 39 (3.3) 67 (2.6) 0.0492
Physical therapy 181 (13.1) 274 (22.9) 455 (17.6) <0.0001
Other 0 (0.0) 6 (0.5) 6 (0.2) 0.0084
Stroke 23 (1.7) 115 (9.6) 138 (5.3) <0.0001
Herbal medicine 6 (0.4) 54 (4.5) 60 (2.3) <0.0001
Compounded herbal medicine 0 (0.0) 13 (1.1) 13 (0.5) 0.0001
Acupuncture 22 (1.6) 113 (9.4) 135 (5.2) <0.0001
Moxa cautery 5 (0.4) 71 (5.9) 76 (2.9) <0.0001
Cupping treatment 5 (0.4) 48 (4.0) 53 (2.1) <0.0001
Chiropractic treatment 1 (0.1) 9 (0.8) 10 (0.4) 0.0056
Physical therapy 13 (0.9) 84 (7.0) 97 (3.8) <0.0001
Other 1 (0.1) 2 (0.2) 3 (0.1) 0.4808
Gastroenteric trouble 116 (8.4) 97 (8.1) 213 (8.3) 0.7974
Herbal medicine 46 (3.3) 43 (3.6) 89 (3.5) 0.7096
Compounded herbal medicine 36 (2.6) 24 (2.0) 60 (2.3) 0.3160
Acupuncture 96 (6.9) 84 (7.0) 180 (7.0) 0.9363
Moxa cautery 32 (2.3) 41 (3.4) 73 (2.8) 0.0890
Cupping treatment 17 (1.2) 13 (1.1) 30 (1.2) 0.7364
Chiropractic treatment 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.04) 0.2822
Physical therapy 19 (1.4) 22 (1.8) 41 (1.6) 0.3462
Other 3 (0.2) 3 (0.3) 6 (0.2) 0.8587
Cold 76 (5.5) 47 (3.9) 123 (4.8) 0.0627
Herbal medicine 46 (3.3) 27 (2.3) 73 (2.8) 0.1025
Compounded herbal medicine 27 (2.0) 16 (1.3) 43 (1.7) 0.2240
Acupuncture 32 (2.3) 21 (1.8) 53 (2.1) 0.3189
Moxa cautery 11 (0.4) 6 (0.2) 17 (0.7) 0.3578
Cupping treatment 4 (0.8) 4 (0.5) 8 (0.3) 0.8371
Chiropractic treatment MR MR MR MR
Physical therapy 7 (0.5) 4 (0.3) 11 (0.4) 0.5044
Other 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04) 0.3523
Frozen shoulder 51 (3.7) 62 (5.2) 113 (4.4) 0.0643
Herbal medicine 4 (0.3) 26 (2.2) 30 (1.2) <0.0001
Compounded herbal medicine 2 (0.1) 9 (0.8) 11 (0.4) 0.0182
Acupuncture 48 (3.5) 60 (5.0) 108 (4.2) 0.0508
Moxa cautery 12 (0.9) 25 (2.1) 37 (1.4) 0.0092
Cupping treatment 18 (1.3) 30 (2.5) 48 (1.9) 0.0238
Chiropractic treatment 1 (0.1) 10 (0.8) 11 (0.4) 0.0030
Physical therapy 30 (2.2) 36 (3.0) 66 (2.6) 0.1778
Other 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.04) 0.2822
Sprained ankle 178 (12.9) 76 (6.3) 254 (9.8) <0.0001
Herbal medicine 9 (0.7) 19 (1.6) 28 (1.1) 0.0219
Compounded herbal medicine 9 (0.7) 3 (0.3) 12 (0.5) 0.1366
Acupuncture 175 (12.6) 74 (6.2) 249 (9.6) <0.0001
Moxa cautery 38 (2.7) 36 (3.0) 74 (2.9) 0.6913
Cupping treatment 44 (3.2) 25 (2.1) 69 (2.7) 0.0866
Chiropractic treatment 3 (0.2) 7 (0.6) 10 (0.4) 0.1334
Physical therapy 103 (7.4) 49 (4.1) 152 (5.9) 0.0003
Other MR MR MR MR
Muscular wound 225 (16.3) 145 (12.1) 370 (14.3) 0.0027
Herbal medicine 23 (1.7) 35 (2.9) 58 (2.3) 0.0310
Compounded herbal medicine 8 (0.6) 10 (0.8) 18 (0.7) 0.4334
Acupuncture 213 (15.4) 144 (12.0) 357 (13.8) 0.0136
Moxa cautery 52 (3.8) 66 (5.5) 118 (4.6) 0.0332
Cupping treatment 91 (6.5) 74 (6.2) 165 (6.4) 0.6834
Chiropractic treatment 7 (0.5) 15 (1.3) 22 (0.9) 0.0395
Physical therapy 140 (10.1) 100 (8.4) 240 (9.3) 0.1242
Other 2 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.1) 0.6503
Lumbar sprain 165 (11.9) 149 (12.4) 314 (12.2) 0.6844
Herbal medicine 12 (0.9) 48 (4.0) 60 (2.3) <0.0001
Compounded herbal medicine 13 (0.9) 13 (1.1) 26 (1.0) 0.7099
Acupuncture 159 (11.5) 146 (12.2) 305 (11.8) 0.5788
Moxa cautery 39 (2.8) 65 (5.4) 104 (4.0) 0.0008
Cupping treatment 46 (3.3) 66 (5.5) 112 (4.3) 0.0065
Chiropractic treatment 16 (1.2) 28 (2.3) 44 (1.7) 0.0206
Physical therapy 111 (8.0) 110 (9.2) 221 (8.6) 0.2901
Other 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.04) 0.2822
Somatotype correction 49 (3.5) 36 (3.0) 85 (3.3) 0.4490
Herbal medicine 41 (3.0) 30 (2.5) 71 (2.8) 0.4795
Compounded herbal medicine 1 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 4 (0.2) 0.2507
Acupuncture 14 (1.0) 18 (1.5) 32 (1.2) 0.2599
Moxa cautery 4 (0.3) 6 (0.5) 10 (0.4) 0.3869
Cupping treatment 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.08) 0.9182
Chiropractic treatment MR MR MR MR
Physical therapy 2 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 5 (0.2) 0.5410
Other 2 (01) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.1) 0.6503
Herbal tonics 96 (6.9) 48 (4.0) 144 (5.6) 0.0012
Herbal medicine 94 (6.8) 47 (3.9) 141 (5.5) 0.0014
Compounded herbal medicine 2 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 3 (0.1) 0.6503
Acupuncture 4 (0.3) 3 (0.3) 7 (0.3) 0.8515
Moxa cautery 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04) 0.3523
Cupping treatment MR MR MR MR
Chiropractic treatment MR MR MR MR
Physical therapy MR MR MR MR
Other 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.04) 0.3523
Aftereffects from traffic accident 42 (3.0) 63 (5.3) 105 (4.1) 0.0043
Herbal medicine 13 (0.9) 39 (3.3) 52 (2.0) <0.0001
Compounded herbal medicine 4 (0.3) 8 (0.7) 12 (0.5) 0.1578
Acupuncture 34 (2.5) 61 (5.1) 95 (3.7) 0.0004
Moxa cautery 10 (0.7) 29 (2.4) 39 (1.5) 0.0004
Cupping treatment 10 (0.7) 32 (2.7) 42 (1.6) <0.0001
Chiropractic treatment 2 (0.1) 19 (1.6) 21 (0.8) <0.0001
Physical therapy 30 (2.2) 51 (4.3) 81 (3.1) 0.0024
Other 0 (0.0) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.08) 0.1282

Data are presented as n (%).

MR = multiple response.

Table 5
Treatment effects of outpatients in Korean Traditional Medicine hospitals/clinics.
Treatment effect Infrequent Frequent Total p
Herbal medicine
Very effective 133 (41.2) 190 (58.8) 323 (35.1) 0.0002
Slightly effective 166 (45.6) 198 (54.4) 364 (39.5)
Average 66 (46.5) 76 (53.5) 142 (15.4)
Rarely effective 8 (47.1) 9 (52.9) 17 (1.9)
Not effective 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3 (0.3)
Do not know 52 (73.2) 19 (26.8) 71 (7.7)
Compounded herbal medicine
Very effective 41 (48.8) 43 (51.2) 84 (24.9) 0.2503
Slightly effective 83 (49.7) 84 (50.3) 167 (46.7)
Average 38 (56.7) 29 (43.3) 67 (19.2)
Rarely effective 4 (50.0) 4 (50.0) 8 (2.3)
Not effective
Do not know 13 (76.5) 4 (23.5) 17 (5.0)
Acupuncture
Very effective 421 (44.3) 529 (55.7) 950 (39.1) <0.0001
Slightly effective 537 (51.0) 516 (49.0) 1053 (43.4)
Average 180 (61.2) 114 (38.8) 294 (12.1)
Rarely effective 18 (62.1) 11 (37.9) 29 (1.2)
Not effective 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 5 (0.2)
Do not know 87 (89.7) 10 (10.3) 97 (4.0)
Moxa cautery
Very effective 115 (35.9) 205 (64.1) 320 (33.9) 0.0040
Slightly effective 163 (38.7) 258 (61.3) 421 (44.6)
Average 59 (36.0) 105 (64.0) 164 (17.4)
Rarely effective 4 (44.4) 5 (55.6) 9 (1.0)
Not effective 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) 3 (0.3)
Do not know 21 (75.0) 7 (25.0) 28 (3.0)
Cupping treatment
Very effective 127 (42.3) 173 (57.7) 300 (32.9) 0.0047
Slightly effective 177 (42.1) 243 (57.9) 420 (46.1)
Average 67 (44.4) 84 (55.6) 151 (16.6)
Rarely effective 4 (33.3) 8 (66.7) 12 (1.3)
Not effective 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (0.2)
Do not know 22 (81.5) 5 (18.5) 27 (3.0)
Chiropractic treatment
Very effective 31 (33.0) 63 (67.0) 94 (42.0) 0.0241
Slightly effective 32 (36.4) 56 (63.6) 88 (39.3)
Average 11 (35.5) 20 (64.5) 31 (13.8)
Rarely effective 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (0.9)
Not effective
Do not know 8 (88.9) 1 (11.1) 9 (4.0)
Physical therapy
Very effective 203 (40.4) 300 (59.6) 503 (31.4) <0.0001
Slightly effective 360 (46.7) 411 (53.3) 771 (48.1)
Average 126 (51.0) 121 (49.0) 247 (15.4)
Rarely effective 9 (45.0) 11 (55.0) 20 (1.3)
Not effective 2 (40.0) 3 (60.0) 5 (0.3)
Do not know 49 (87.5) 7 (12.5) 56 (3.5)

Data are presented as n (%).

Table 6
Satisfaction level and side effects among outpatients in Korean Traditional Medicine hospitals/clinics.
Satisfaction and side effect Infrequent Frequent Total p
Satisfaction level
Very satisfied 246 (44.0) 313 (56.0) 559 (21.7) <0.0001
Satisfied 813 (53.5) 708 (46.6) 1521 (59.1)
Average 235 (60.0) 157 (40.1) 392 (15.2)
Unsatisfied 14 (51.9) 13 (48.2) 27 (1.1)
Very unsatisfied 2 (66.7) 1 (33.3) 3 (0.1)
Do not know 68 (93.2) 5 (6.9) 73 (2.8)
Side effect 25 (54.4) 21 (45.7) 46 (1.8) 0.9106
Stomachache, diarrhea 5 (55.6) 4 (44.4) 9 (18.4) 0.3083
Rash, itching 9 (47.4) 10 (52.6) 19 (38.8)
Paralysis 3 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (6.1)
Jaundice 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0) 1 (2.0)
Edema 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (4.1)
Other 11 (73.3) 4 (26.7) 15 (30.6)

Data are presented as n (%).

Table 7
Logistic regression on frequency utilizing Korean Traditional Medicine hospitals/clinics.
Independent variables Model 1
Model 2
exp (β) p exp (β ) p
Sex
Men Reference Reference
Women 0.86 0.1293 0.82 0.0645
Age
Under 10s 2.36 0.0830 1.84 0.2790
10s Reference Reference
20s 1.26 0.3749 1.16 0.5910
30s 1.69 0.0665 1.47 0.1976
40s 2.93 0.0002 2.67 0.0014
50s 3.29 <0.0001 2.79 0.0012
60s 5.45 <0.0001 4.13 <0.0001
70s 6.64 <0.0001 5.24 <0.0001
80s and above 6.18 0.0006 4.70 0.0047
Marital Status
Single 1.18 0.3787 1.13 0.5395
Married Reference Reference
Widowed 1.12 0.5124 1.11 0.5599
Divorced 1.39 0.3937 1.47 0.3342
Separated 5.52 0.1205 6.78 0.0855
Others 0.13 0.0762 0.12 0.0671
Education
None Reference Reference
Elementary school 0.86 0.4850 0.95 0.8086
Middle school 0.78 0.3180 0.93 0.7758
High school 0.67 0.0977 0.77 0.3018
College 0.83 0.4853 0.97 0.9145
Others 0.63 0.7242 0.98 0.9863
Job
Yes 0.57 <0.0001 0.56 <0.0001
No Reference Reference
Income (USD)
<1000 Reference Reference
1001–2000 1.00 0.9952 1.03 0.8483
2001–3000 0.89 0.4497 0.96 0.8047
3001–4000 0.88 0.4678 0.93 0.7014
4001–5000 0.77 0.1741 0.76 0.1653
>5000 1.20 0.3333 1.31 0.1841
Health Insurance
Residence based 1.05 0.5687 1.07 0.4817
Workplace based Reference Reference
Medicare Class 1 1.61 0.0862 1.47 0.1709
Medicare Class 2 0.95 0.8789 0.79 0.5461
Others 1.12 0.7853 0.81 0.6111
Diseases and symptoms
Hypertension 1.40 0.3582
Arthritis 2.15 <0.0001
Backache 1.86 <0.0001
Diabetes 0.81 0.6658
Stroke 4.89 <0.0001
Cramps 1.17 0.620
Asthma 1.14 0.8366
Repressed anger and stress 1.77 0.0877
Gastroenteric trouble 1.34 0.0849
Cold 0.89 0.6191
Atopy 2.60 0.0398
Cancer 1.08 0.9091
Infertility 1.08 0.9477
Frozen shoulder 1.61 0.0294
Sprained ankle 0.65 0.0079
Muscular wound 1.10 0.4501
Lumbar sprain 1.63 0.0004
Fracture 1.25 0.5277
Diet/obesity 2.30 0.0041
Skin care 2.29 0.0344
Somatotype correction 1.94 0.2269
Constitution improvement 1.24 0.4097
Herbal tonics 0.59 0.0145
Height growth 4.05 0.0833
Aftereffects from traffic accident 2.89 <0.0001
Total 0.54 0.1204 0.34 0.0084

Dependent variables: Frequency (infrequent: 0, frequent: 1).

Model 1: sociodemographic factors.

Model 2: Model 1 + 25 diseases.



METRICS Graph View
  • 2 Crossref
  • 2 Scopus
  • 544 View
  • 4 Download


Close layer