Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils

Essential oil (EO) use is growing in popularity and ostensibly used for treating or preventing various ailments or conditions. Despite the increase in use, there is a paucity of research on psychosocial predictors of EO use and their perceived effectiveness. However, several psychosocial characteristics are associated with health-promoting behavior and a tendency to believe in homeopathic cures. In the current study, we examined a variety of individual differences in the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils in a sample of 1,202 participants (Mage = 31.33, SD = 13.77; 61.7% women, 75.6% Caucasian). We found that receptivity to pseudo-profound fabricated statements and religiosity were the most consistent predictors of greater use of, perceived effectiveness of, and a willingness to spend more money on EOs.

Differences in healthcare utilisation between users and non-users of homeopathic products in Spain: Results from three waves of the National Health Survey (2011-2017)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the differences in the use of healthcare services: visits to the doctor and hospitalisation, performance of routine tests, and preventive influenza vaccination, between users and non-users of homeopathic products.

METHODS

We used the microdata for adults over 15 years old from three waves of the Spanish National Health Survey, corresponding to the years 2011, 2014 and 2017. We proposed a comparative design of a quasi-experimental type, considering as the treatment group the respondents who said that they had used homeopathic products in the past two weeks; and another group, for control, comprising respondents who said that they had not used this type of products, but only conventional medicines, with observable characteristics similar to those of the treatment group. We used a model for rare events logistics regression (relogit) to estimate the probability of using homeopathy. From the propensity score and a vector of control variables, we used techniques of genetic matching to match individuals from the treatment group with similar individuals belonging to the control group.

RESULTS

There are no statistically significant differences between users and non-users of homeopathy in visits to the general practitioner (P>|z| 0.387), to the specialist (P>|z| 0.52), in hospitalisations (P>|z| 0.592) or in the use of emergency services (P>|z| 0.109). Nor were there any statistically significant differences in the performance of routine tests, except for the faecal occult blood test, which is more prevalent in users of homeopathic products. 20.9% of users of homeopathy had done this test compared with 15.3% of non-users (P>|z| 0.022). There are also significant differences in vaccination against influenza with 12.6% of homeopathy users stating that they had been vaccinated in the last influenza campaign, against 21.0% of non-users (P>|z| <0.001). The health conditions which homeopathy users reported were constipation (OR: 1.65 CI: 1.16-2.36), malignant tumour (OR: 1.60 CI: 1.09-2.36) osteoporosis (OR: 1.49 CI: 1.05-2.10), varicose veins (OR: 1.35 CI: 1.05-1.74) and allergy (OR: 1.35 CI: 1.06-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the use of healthcare resources between users and non-users of homeopathic products have not been found to be statistically significant in Spain. It has been shown that most homeopathic products are used as a complement to treatment with conventional medicine. Nevertheless, our results highlight some warning signs which should raise the attention of healthcare authorities. The use of these therapies in patients with malignant tumours and the rejection of vaccines are warning signs of a possible health hazard in the long term.

Plausibility and evidence: the case of homeopathy

Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from 'comparable to conventional medicine' to 'no evidence of effects beyond placebo'. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence--for homeopathy and for conventional medicine--can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the 'crossword analogy', we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence.

Incommensurable worldviews? Is public use of complementary and alternative medicines incompatible with support for science and conventional medicine?

Proponents of controversial Complementary and Alternative Medicines, such as homeopathy, argue that these treatments can be used with great effect in addition to, and sometimes instead of, 'conventional' medicine. In doing so, they accept the idea that the scientific approach to the evaluation of treatment does not undermine use of and support for some of the more controversial CAM treatments. For those adhering to the scientific canon, however, such efficacy claims lack the requisite evidential basis from randomised controlled trials. It is not clear, however, whether such opposition characterises the views of the general public. In this paper we use data from the 2009 Wellcome Monitor survey to investigate public use of and beliefs about the efficacy of a prominent and controversial CAM within the United Kingdom, homeopathy. We proceed by using Latent Class Analysis to assess whether it is possible to identify a sub-group of the population who are at ease in combining support for science and conventional medicine with use of CAM treatments, and belief in the efficacy of homeopathy. Our results suggest that over 40% of the British public maintain positive evaluations of both homeopathy and conventional medicine simultaneously. Explanatory analyses reveal that simultaneous support for a controversial CAM treatment and conventional medicine is, in part, explained by a lack of scientific knowledge as well as concerns about the regulation of medical research.

Pre-trial beliefs in complementary and alternative medicine: whose pre-trial belief should be considered?

Subjective probabilities play a significant role in the assessment of evidence: in other words, our background knowledge, or pre-trial beliefs, cannot be set aside when new evidence is being evaluated. Focusing on homeopathy, this paper investigates the nature of pre-trial beliefs in clinical trials. It asks whether pre-trial beliefs of the sort normally held only by those who are sympathetic to homeopathy can legitimately be disregarded in those trials. The paper addresses several surprisingly unsuccessful attempts to provide a satisfactory justification for ignoring the pre-trial beliefs of the homeopathic community. The ensuing diagnosis of the difficulties here emphasizes that the reason the arguments for choosing the pre-trial beliefs of the conventional community seem insufficient is not the arguments per se. It is rather that there is no cogent argument for choosing the conventional stance which would at the same time rationally persuade a member of the homeopathic community. The paper concludes that, once we understand that this is the predicament, there is no genuine reason to doubt the reasoning that leads us to reject the pre-trial beliefs of the homeopathic community.

Damning with faint praise: how homoeopaths talk about conventional medicine with their patients

Homoeopathy is one of the most widely used forms of complementary medicine in the West. However, its methods and philosophical underpinnings are basically polarized in relation to those of conventional medicine. Many homoeopathic patients choose to continue using conventional medicine while they receive homoeopathy, but from a homoeopathic perspective, these treatments are often regarded as undesirable or even damaging. This article will utilize the principles of conversation analysis (CA) to explore points in homoeopathic consultations where practitioners address their patients' use of conventional medications. It will be suggested that approaches which display a degree of incorporation are preferred to those which imply categorical rejection. By not emphasizing the underlying tensions between conventional and homoeopathic paradigms, and displaying an adaptive and inclusive approach, homoeopathy essentially sets itself up as a parallel (i.e. equal) system, rather than one that is purely in opposition to the dominant medical model.