Exploring General Practitioners’ attitudes to homeopathy in Dumfries and Galloway
Received22 October 2002
revised13 March 2003
accepted26 June 2003
12 December 2017 (online)
This comparative quantitative study explored General Practitioners’ (GPs) attitudes to homeopathy in Dumfries and Galloway, a predominantly rural area in South West Scotland where there is a local British Homeopathic Association Funded Homeopathic Clinic. It aimed to determine whether there was an association between expressed attitudes to homeopathy and a number of variables. Issues arising from the House of Lords Report on CAM were also explored. A self-administered questionnaire was addressed to all 135 GPs within Dumfries and Galloway. Descriptive statistics were used in the data analysis.
The response rate was 75%. The NHS GP clinic accounted for 47% of total referrals for homeopathy. A total of 86.1% of GPs within Dumfries and Galloway were in favour of a local NHS Homeopathic Specialist Clinic. Forms of evidence most influential to GPs regarding homeopathy were: randomised controlled trials; audit data on patient outcomes; safety and patient satisfaction.
- 1 Reilly D. The Evidence Profile for Homeopathy—Creating the Verification Mosaic. Glasgow: Glasgow Academic Departments of Homeopathy, 1998, pp 1–14.
- 2 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 6th Report. London: The Stationery Office, 2000.
- 3 Wyllie M, Hannaford P. Attitudes to complementary therapies and referral for homeopathic treatment. A Survey of General Practitioners in Lothian, Scotland: Br Hom J 1998; 87: 13–16.
- 4 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Opportunities for Homeopathy within the New NHS. London, 2000, p 9.
- 5 White AR, Resch KL, Ernst E. A survey of complementary practitioners fees practice and attitudes to working within the National Health Service. Complement Ther Med 1997; 5: 210–214.
- 6 Perry R, Dowrick C. Homeopathy and general practice: an urban perspective. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 13–16.
- 7 Perkin M, Pearcy R, Fraser J. A comparison of the attitudes shown by general practitioners, hospital doctors and medical students towards alternative medicine. J R Soc Med 1994; 87: 523–525.
- 8 Franklin D. Medical practitioners attitudes to complementary medicine. Complement Med Res 1992; 6: 69–71.
- 9 Hunter A. Attitudes to complementary medicine. A survey of General Practitioners and medical students in the Tayside Area. Commun Br Hom Res Group 1988; 17: 34–51.
- 10 Thomas K, Fitter M. Possible research strategies for evaluating CAM interventions. In: Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H (eds). Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies. Principles, Problems and Solutions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002, Chap 4, p 72.
- 11 Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC. Randomized controlled trial of homeopathy versus placebo on perennial allergic rhinitis with an overview of four trial series. Br Med J 2000; 321: 471–476.
- 12 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC. Is Evidence for homeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344: 1601–1606.
- 13 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathic potency, with pollen in hay fever as model. Lancet 1986; 2: 881–886.
- 14 Reilly DT, Taylor MA. Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 65–75.
- 15 Linde K, Melchart D. Randomised controlled trials of individualised homeopathy: a state-of –the-art review. J Alternat Complement Med 1998; 4: 371–388.
- 16 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.
- 17 Dean ME. More trials, fewer placebos, please. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 191–194.
- 18 Whitmarsh T. More lessons from migraine. Editorial. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 1–2.
- 19 Westland M, Grimshaw J, Maitland J, Campbell M, Ledingham E, Mcleod E. Understanding practice management: a qualitative study in general practice. J Manage Med 1996; 10: 29–37
- 20 Parahoo K. Nursing Research Principles Process and Issues. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997, Chap 14, pp 338–359.
- 21 McColl E, Thomas R. The Use and Design of Questionnaires. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000.
- 22 Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 35: 37–48.
- 23 The NHS Confederation. Complementary Medicine in the NHS; Managing the Issues, Vol 4. Birmingham: The NHS Confederation, 1997, p 10.
- 24 Van Haselen R, Fisher P. Attitudes to evidence on complementary medicine: the perspective of British healthcare purchasers. Complement Ther Med 1999; 7: 136–141.
- 25 Kelner M, Wellman B. Introduction complementary and alternative medicine: challenge and change. In: Kelner M, Wellman B, Pescosolido B, Saks M (eds). Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Challenge and Change. The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000, pp 5–6.
- 26 Walach H, Jonas W. Homeopathy. In: Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H (eds). Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies. Principles, Problems and Solutions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002, Chap 14, p 240.