What accounts for the appeal of complementary/alternative medicine, and what makes complementary/alternative medicine "alternative"

The goal of this study was to elucidate the basis for the appeal of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) and the basis upon which people distinguish between CAM and conventional medicine. Undergraduates (N = 173) rated 19 approaches to the treatment of chronic back pain on 16 rating scales. Data were analyzed via 3-mode factor analysis, which extracted conceptual dimensions common to both the scales and the treatments. A 5-factor solution was judged to give the best description of the raters' perceptions. One of these 5 factors clearly reflected the distinction between conventional versus CAM approaches, and a 2nd factor clearly referred to treatment appeal. The other 3 factors were invasiveness, health care professional versus patient effort, and "druglikeness." To the extent that treatment was seen as a CAM treatment (as opposed to a conventional treatment), it was seen to be more appealing, less invasive, and less druglike. Simple and partial correlations of the dimension weights indicated that both the appeal of CAM and the distinction between CAM and conventional medicine were largely driven by the view that CAM is less invasive than conventional medicine.