Patients’ assessments of the effectiveness of homeopathic care in Norway: A prospective observational multicentre outcome study
Received05 July 2004
revised09 September 2004
accepted08 November 2004
21 December 2017 (online)
Objective: To evaluate the patient reported effects of homeopathic care 6 months after first consultations.
Methods: Prospective uncontrolled observational multicentre outcome study. All patients visiting 80 homeopaths all over Norway for the first time in eight different time periods from 1996 to 1998 were approached. Patients wrote down their main complaint and scored its impact on daily living on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at the first consultation. Six months later they were asked to score again. The homeopaths recorded treatments given for up to two follow-up consultations.
Main outcome measure: Predefined as a reduction of at least 10 mm in the VAS score between the first consultation and follow-up.
Result: Patients 1097 were recruited, 654 completed the follow-up questionnaire. The main complaint improved by at least 10 mm on the VAS for 71% (95% confidence interval 67–74%) of patients. The average reduction was 32 mm (95% CI 30–35 mm). Fifty-one per cent (95% CI 48–55%) of the patients had an improvement in their general well being of more than 10 mm. The mean reduction in the whole group was 14 mm (95% CI 12–16 mm). The proportion of patients using conventional medication reduced from 39% to 16%. Regression analysis showed that lower age and higher baseline score were predictors of better outcome.
Conclusion: In this study, seven out of ten patients visiting a Norwegian homeopath reported a meaningful improvement in their main complaint 6 months after the initial consultation.
- 1 Goldstein M.S, Glik D. Use of and satisfaction with homeopathy in a patient population. Altern Ther Health Med 1998; 4 (02) 60-65.
- 2 Anelli M, Scheepers L, Sermeus G, Van Wassenhoven M. Homeopathy and health related quality of life. a survey in six European countries. Homeopathy 2002; 91 (01) 18-21.
- 3 Sevar R. Audit of outcome in 829 consecutive patients treated with homeopathic medicines. Br Hom J 2000; 89 (04) 178-187.
- 4 Treuherz F. Homeopathy in general practice. a descriptive report of work with 500 consecutive patients. Br Hom J 2000; 89 S1 43.
- 5 Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children. treatment effect or spontaneous resolution?. Br Hom J 2001; 90 (04) 180-182.
- 6 Muscari-Tomaioli G, Allegri F, Miali E. et al. Observational study of quality of life in patients with headache, receiving homeopathic treatment. Br Hom J 2001; 90 (04) 189-197.
- 7 Clover A. Patient benefit survey. Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. Br Hom J 2000; 89 (02) 68-72.
- 8 Richardson W.R. Patient benefit survey. Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. Br Hom J 2001; 90 (03) 158-162.
- 9 Straumsheim P.A. Pasientregistrering. Del 2. Pasienters vurdering av homeopatisk praksis. [Patientregistration. Part 2. Patients evaluation of homeopaths practice].. Dynamics 1992; 4: 5-6.
- 10 Becker-Witt C, Lüdtke R, Weißhuhn T.E.R, Willich S.N. Diagnoses and treatment in homeopathic medical practice. Forsch Kompl Klass Naturheilkd 2004; 11: 98-103.
- 11 Guthlin C, Lange O, Walach H. Measuring the effects of acupuncture and homoeopathy in general practice. an uncontrolled prospective documentation approach. BMC Public Health 2004; 4 (01) 6.
- 12 Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B, Haidvogl M, Heger M. Homeopathy and conventional medicine. an outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. J Altern Complement Med 2001; 7 (02) 149-159.
- 13 Van Wassenhoven M, Ives G. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004; 93 (01) 3-11.
- 14 Becker-Witt C, Keil T, Roll S, et al. Effectiveness and costs of homeopathy compared to conventional medicine—a prospective multicenter cohort study. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital 2003;57–60.
- 15 Steinsbekk A, Fønnebø V. Users of homeopathy in Norway in 1998, compared to previous users and GP patients. Homeopathy 2003; 92 (01) 3-10.
- 16 Wonca International Classification Committee. International Classification of Primary Care, ICPC-2, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
- 17 Royston P, Altman D.G. Approximating statistical functions by using fractional polynomial regression. Statistician 1997; 46: 411-422.
- 18 SPSS Inc © 1959–2001. SPSS for Windows v 11.5. http://www.spss.com 2003.
- 19 Cary NC. SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc, 1999.
- 20 Steinsbekk A, Fønnebø V. Homøopaters praksis. En spørreundersøkelse om økonomi, antall pasienter og tidsbruk. [Characteristics of Norwegian homeopaths; economic, number of patients and time.]. Dynamis 1999; 4: 12-18.
-  Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care, a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ 1996; 312 7037 1016-1020.
- 22 Paterson C, Britten N. In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes. a qualitative evaluation of the ‘Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile’. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 5 (01) 27-36.
- 23 Vithoulkas G. The Science of Homeopathy. New York: Grove Press Inc; 1980