Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in medical practice: A prospective, research-targeted, pilot study

Abstract

Background and aims: A base for targeted research and development in homeopathy can be founded on systematic collection and analysis of relevant clinical data obtained by doctors in routine practice. With these longer-term aims in mind, we conducted a pilot data collection study, in which 14 homeopathic physicians collected clinical and outcomes data over a 6-month period in their practice setting.

Methods: A specifically designed Excel spreadsheet enabled recording of consecutive clinical appointments under the following main headings: date, patient identity (anonymised), age and gender, medical condition/complaint treated, whether chronic or acute, new or follow-up case, patient-assessed outcome (7-point Likert scale: −3 to +3) compared with first appointment, homeopathic medicine/s prescribed, whether any other medication/s being taken for the condition. Spreadsheets were submitted monthly via email to the project co-ordinator for data synthesis and analysis.

Results: Practitioners typically submitted data regularly and punctually, and most data cells were completed as required, enabling substantial data analysis. The mean age of patients was 41.5 years. A total of 1783 individual patient conditions were treated overall. Outcome from two or more homeopathic appointments per patient condition was obtained in 961 cases (75.9% positive, 4.6% negative, 14.7% no change; 4.8% outcome not recorded). Strongly positive outcomes (scores of +2 or +3) were achieved most notably in the frequently treated conditions of anxiety, depression, and irritable bowel syndrome.

Conclusions: This multi-practitioner pilot study has indicated that systematic recording of clinical data in homeopathy is both feasible and capable of informing future research. A refined version of the spreadsheet can be employed in larger-scale research-targeted clinical data collection in the medical practice setting—particularly in primary care.

Keywords

systematic data collection - homeopathic doctors - clinical outcomes - research targeting

• References

• 1 White A., Ernst E. The case for uncontrolled clinical trials: a starting point for the evidence base for CAM. Complement Ther Med 2001; 9: 111-115.
• 2 Walach H., Jonas W.B., Lewith G.T. The role of outcomes research in evaluating complementary and alternative medicine. Altern Ther Health Med 2002; 8: 88-95.
• 3 Bell I. Evidence-based homeopathy: empirical questions and methodological considerations for homeopathic research. Am J Hom Med 2003; 96: 17-31.
• 4 Mathie R.T. Clinical outcomes research: contributions to the evidence-base for homeopathy. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 56-57.
• 5 van Haselen R., Fisher P. Describing and improving homeopathy. Use of systematic data collection. Br Hom J 1994; 83: 135-141.
• 6 Clover A. Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 68-72.
• 7 Richardson W.R. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. Br Hom J 2001; 90: 158-162.
• 8 Spence D.S., Thompson E.A., Barron S.J. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 793-798.
• 9 Neville-Smith R. Community Hospital Homeopathy Clinic: audit of the first 12 months activity. Br Hom J 1999; 88: 20-23.
• 10 Attena F., Del Giudice N., Verrengia G., Granito C. Homoeopathy in primary care: self-reported change in health status. Complement Ther Med 2000; 8: 21-25.
• 11 Downey P. Audit of prescribing style and outcomes in general practice. Br Hom J 1996; 85: 71-74.
• 12 Slade K., Chohan B.P., Barker P.J. Evaluation of a GP practice based homeopathy service. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 67-70.
• 13 Sevar R. Audit of outcome in 455 consecutive patients treated with homeopathic medicines. Homeopathy 2005; 94: 215-221.
• 14 Robinson T.W. Responses to homeopathic treatment in National Health Service general practice. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 9-14.
• 15 Van Wassenhoven M., Ives G. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 3-11.
• 16 Steinsbekk A., Lüdtke R. Patients’ assessments of the effectiveness of homeopathic care in Norway: a prospective observational multicentre outcome study. Homeopathy 2005; 94: 10-16.
• 17 Witt C.M., Lüdtke R., Baur R., Willich S.N. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. BMC Public Health 2005; 5: 115.
• 18 Gordon S., Ameen V., Bagby B., Shahan B., Jhingran P., Carter E. Validation of irritable bowel syndrome Global Improvement Scale: an integrated symptom end point for assessing treatment efficacy. Dig Dis Sci 2003; 48: 1317-1323.
• 19 Mercer S.W., Reilly D., Watt G.C. The importance of empathy in the enablement of patients attending the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: 901-905.