Does homoeopathy work? Part I: A review of studies on patient and practitioner reports*

Prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by physicians in the UK: a systematic review of surveys

This systematic review aims to estimate the prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by physicians in the UK. Five databases were searched for surveys monitoring the prevalence of use of CAM, which were published between 1 January 1995 and 7 December 2011. In total, 14 papers that reported 13 separate surveys met our inclusion criteria. Most were of poor methodological quality. The average prevalence of use of CAM across all surveys was 20.6% (range 12.1-32%). The average referral rate to CAM was 39% (range 24.6-86%), and CAM was recommended by 46% of physicians (range 38-55%). The average percentage of physicians who had received training in CAM was 10.3% (range 4.8-21%). The three most commonly used methods of CAM were acupuncture, homeopathy and relaxation therapy. A sizable proportion of physicians in the UK seem to employ some type of CAM, yet many have not received any training in CAM. This raises issues related to medical ethics, professional competence and education of physicians.

A grounded theory study of homeopathic practitioners' perceptions and experiences of the homeopathic consultation

Research into the homeopathic consultation has largely focused on patients' experiences, although the practitioner is a crucial component of the therapeutic context and may have an important part in optimizing health outcomes. Therefore the aim of this qualitative research was to gain an in-depth understanding of homeopathic practitioners' perceptions and experiences of the consultation. Medical and non-medical homeopaths were sampled from the registers of the Faculty and Society of Homeopaths. Two phases of data collection were employed. Phase 1 used in depth face-to-face interviews enabling the development of an initial model of the homeopathic consultation. Phase 2 involved observations of homeopathic consultations and practitioner reflective diaries in order to confirm, refute, or enlarge the model. Using the constant comparative method of grounded theory five main categories emerged, exploring the journey, finding the level, responding therapeutically, understanding self, and connecting, forming a model entitled "a theoretical model of a UK classical homeopathic consultation" which describes how homeopaths view and enact the consultation process. This study suggests that the process of identifying and prescribing the remedy is embedded in the consultation, highlighting the interconnectedness of the whole homeopathic consultation and aspects of the consultation that are unique and specific to homeopathy.

Towards standard setting for patient-reported outcomes in the NHS homeopathic hospitals

INTRODUCTION

We report findings from a pilot data collection study within a programme of quality assurance, improvement and development across all five homeopathic hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

AIMS

(1) To pilot the collection of clinical data in the homeopathic hospital outpatient setting, recording patient-reported outcome since first appointment; (2) to sample the range of medical complaints that secondary-care doctors treat using homeopathy, and thus identify the nature and complexity of complaints most frequently treated nationally; (3) to present a cross section of outcome scores by appointment number, including that for the most frequently treated medical complaints; (4) to explore approaches to standard setting for homeopathic practice outcome in patients treated at the homeopathic hospitals.

METHODS

A total of 51 medical practitioners took part in data collection over a 4-week period. Consecutive patient appointments were recorded under the headings: (1) date of first appointment in the current series; (2) appointment number; (3) age of patient; (4) sex of patient; (5) main medical complaint being treated; (6) whether other main medical complaint(s); (7) patient-reported change in health, using Outcome Related to Impact on Daily Living (ORIDL) and its derivative, the ORIDL Profile Score (ORIDL-PS; range, -4 to +4, where a score <or=-2 or >or=+2 indicates an effect on the quality of a patient's daily life); (8) receipt of other complementary medicine for their main medical complaint.

RESULTS

The distribution of patient age was bimodal: main peak, 49 years; secondary peak, 6 years. Male:female ratio was 1:3.5. Data were recorded on a total of 1797 individual patients: 195 first appointments, 1602 follow-ups (FUs). Size of clinical service and proportion of patients who attended more than six visits varied between hospitals. A total of 235 different medical complaints were reported. The 30 most commonly treated complaints were (in decreasing order of frequency): eczema; chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS); menopausal disorder; osteoarthritis; depression; breast cancer; rheumatoid arthritis; asthma; anxiety; irritable bowel syndrome; multiple sclerosis; psoriasis; allergy (unspecified); fibromyalgia; migraine; premenstrual syndrome; chronic rhinitis; headache; vitiligo; seasonal allergic rhinitis; chronic intractable pain; insomnia; ulcerative colitis; acne; psoriatic arthropathy; urticaria; ovarian cancer; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); epilepsy; sinusitis. The proportion of patients with important co-morbidity was higher in those seen after visit 6 (56.9%) compared with those seen up to and including that point (40.7%; P<0.001). The proportion of FU patients reporting ORIDL-PS>or=+2 (improvement affecting daily living) increased overall with appointment number: 34.5% of patients at visit 2 and 59.3% of patients at visit 6, for example. Amongst the four most frequently treated complaints, the proportion of patients that reported ORIDL-PS>or=+2 at visit numbers greater than 6 varied between 59.3% (CFS) and 73.3% (menopausal disorder).

CONCLUSIONS

We have successfully piloted a process of national clinical data collection using patient-reported outcome in homeopathic hospital outpatients, identifying a wide range and complexity of medical complaints treated in that setting. After a series of homeopathy appointments, a high proportion of patients, often representing "effectiveness gaps" for conventional medical treatment, reported improvement in health affecting their daily living. These pilot findings are informing our developing programme of standard setting for homeopathic care in the hospital outpatient context.