Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Homeopathy 2019; 108(01): 024-032
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1670689
Original Research Article
The Faculty of Homeopathy

Reasons for Use of and Experiences with Homeopathic Treatment as an Adjunct to Usual Cancer Care: Results of a Small Qualitative Study

Charlotte Yde
1   Odense C, Denmark
,
Petter Viksveen
2   Centre for Resilience in Healthcare (SHARE), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
,
Jean Duckworth
3   School of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was partly supported by Fonden af 1870. The fund had no role in the study design, or in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; nor in the writing of the report, and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Further Information

Publication History

15 May 2018

08 August 2018

Publication Date:
21 September 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background A significant proportion of patients with cancer consult with homeopaths. No former qualitative study has reported on experiences with homeopathy in this patient group. This study aimed to learn about the reasons for, and experiences with, treatment provided by homeopaths among Danish patients with cancer.

Methods A small qualitative semi-structured interview study was carried out to collect preliminary knowledge to learn about reasons for and experiences with treatment provided by homeopaths as an adjunct to usual care among patients with cancer. Thematic analysis was used for the development of themes.

Results Five patients, diagnosed with cancer, were interviewed. On the basis of qualitative interviews five themes emerged: concerns and hopes, obstacles and support, internal health locus of control, whole person approach, and improved well-being.

Conclusion The cancer patients in this study sought homeopathy to address their hopes and concerns and to help them face obstacles and find support. They were actively taking responsibility for their own health and valued the whole person approach used by their homeopaths. Participants reported improved well-being both at the physical and mental levels. The results provide a basis for further research to learn more from patients' experiences with this intervention. Such knowledge could potentially be helpful to improve healthcare practitioners' communication with patients, and thereby patients' overall care.

Keywords

qualitative - complementary and alternative medicine - homeopathy - cancer - thematic analysis

Highlights

• This is the first qualitative study exploring cancer patients' experiences with homeopathy.


• Patients described concerns, hopes, obstacles and support in their treatment.


• Homeopathy was considered to be a whole person approach.


• Patients felt in control of their treatment and their well-being improved.


• This was a small study and more research is needed in this clinical field.


 

  • References

  • 1 World Health Organization. Cancer: Data and Statistics Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/cancer . Accessed April 11, 2018
    PubMed
  • 2 Møller B, Fekjaer H, Hakulinen T. , et al. Prediction of cancer incidence in the Nordic countries up to the year 2020. Eur J Cancer Prev 2002; 11 (Suppl. 01) S1-S96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gatta G, Mallone S, van der Zwan JM, Trama A, Siesling S, Capocaccia R. ; EUROCARE Working Group. Cancer prevalence estimates in Europe at the beginning of 2000. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 1660-1666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J. , et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1374-1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 1165-1174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Frass M, Strassl RP, Friehs H, Müllner M, Kundi M, Kaye AD. Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: a systematic review. Ochsner J 2012; 12: 45-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G, Less D, Ritter E, Zwahlen M. How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther 2012; 11: 187-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Davidsen M, Juel K. Sundhed og sygelighed i Danmark 2010 - og udviklingen siden 1987. Statens Institut for Folkesundhed, Syddansk Universitet; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Pedersen CG, Christensen S, Jensen AB, Zachariae R. Prevalence, socio-demographic and clinical predictors of post-diagnostic utilisation of different types of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in a nationwide cohort of Danish women treated for primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 3172-3181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nissen N, Lunde A, Pedersen CG, Johannessen H. The use of complementary and alternative medicine after the completion of hospital treatment for colorectal cancer: findings from a questionnaire study in Denmark. BMC Complement Altern Med 2014; 14: 388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bishop F, Rea A, Lewith H. , et al. Complementary medicine use by men with prostate cancer: A systematic review of prevalence studies. Eur J Integr Med 2010; 2: 179-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Klafke N, Eliott JA, Wittert GA, Olver IN. Prevalence and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by men in Australian cancer outpatient services. Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 1571-1578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kristoffersen AE, Norheim AJ, Fønnebø VM. Complementary and alternative medicine use among Norwegian cancer survivors: gender-specific prevalence and associations for use. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013; 2013: 318781
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Molassiotis A, Fernandez-Ortega P, Pud D. , et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use in colorectal cancer patients in seven European countries. Complement Ther Med 2005; 13: 251-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Molassiotis A, Scott JA, Kearney N. , et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use in breast cancer patients in Europe. Support Care Cancer 2006; 14: 260-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Molassiotis A, Panteli V, Patiraki E. , et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use in lung cancer patients in eight European countries. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2006; 12: 34-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fisher P. What is homeopathy? An introduction. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 2012; 4: 1669-1682
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Relton C, Cooper K, Viksveen P, Fibert P, Thomas K. Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review. Homeopathy 2017; 106: 69-78
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Becker-Witt C, Lüdtke R, Weisshuhn TE, Willich SN. Diagnoses and treatment in homeopathic medical practice. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2004; 11: 98-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Relton C, Chatfield K, Partington H, Foulkes L. Patients treated by homeopaths registered with the Society of Homeopaths: a pilot study. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 87-89
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lewith G. (2012) CAM use – the patients' perspective. In: CAMbrella. The Roadmap for European CAM Research. Bruxelles: Seventh Framework Programme; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D. , et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 655-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Guethlin C, Walach H, Naumann J, Bartsch HH, Rostock M. Characteristics of cancer patients using homeopathy compared with those in conventional care: a cross-sectional study. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 1094-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 2: CD004845
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rostock M, Naumann J, Guethlin C, Guenther L, Bartsch HH, Walach H. Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients--a prospective observational study of two independent cohorts. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sencer SF, Zhou T, Freedman LS. , et al. Traumeel S in preventing and treating mucositis in young patients undergoing SCT: a report of the Children's Oncology Group. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012; 47: 1409-1414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gaertner K, Müllner M, Friehs H. , et al. Additive homeopathy in cancer patients: Retrospective survival data from a homeopathic outpatient unit at the Medical University of Vienna. Complement Ther Med 2014; 22: 320-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Frass M, Friehs H, Thallinger C. , et al. Influence of adjunctive classical homeopathy on global health status and subjective wellbeing in cancer patients - A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Med 2015; 23: 309-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E. Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 282-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Frenkel M. Is there a role for homeopathy in cancer care? Questions and challenges. Curr Oncol Rep 2015; 17: 43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Chenail RJ. Interviewing the investigator: strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2011; 16: 255-262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Noble H, Smith J. Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs 2015; 18: 34-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rotter JB. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1954
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Wallston BS, Wallston KA, Kaplan GD, Maides SA. Development and validation of the health locus of control (HLC) scale. J Consult Clin Psychol 1976; 44: 580-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hök J, Falkenberg T, Tishelman C. Lay perspectives on the use of biologically based therapies in the context of cancer: a qualitative study from Sweden. J Clin Pharm Ther 2011; 36: 367-375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mulkins AL, Verhoef MJ. Supporting the transformative process: experiences of cancer patients receiving integrative care. Integr Cancer Ther 2004; 3: 230-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Verhoef MJ, Rose MS, White M, Balneaves LG. Declining conventional cancer treatment and using complementary and alternative medicine: a problem or a challenge?. Curr Oncol 2008; 15 (02) (Suppl. 02) s101-s106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Verhoef MJ, White MA. Factors in making the decision to forgo conventional cancer treatment. Cancer Pract 2002; 10: 201-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 van Kleffens T, van Leeuwen E. Physicians' evaluations of patients' decisions to refuse oncological treatment. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Schützler L, Witt CM. Internal health locus of control in users of complementary and alternative medicine: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Altern Med 2014; 14: 320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rossi E, Vita A, Baccetti S, Di Stefano M, Voller F, Zanobini A. Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative oncology centres in Europe. Support Care Cancer 2015; 23: 1795-1806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Salamonsen A. Doctor-patient communication and cancer patients' choice of alternative therapies as supplement or alternative to conventional care. Scand J Caring Sci 2013; 27: 70-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Finfgeld-Connett D. Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J Adv Nurs 2010; 66: 246-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar