Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in homeopathy have suggested that homeopathy is more than a placebo response. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the effectiveness of homeopathy in primary care with conventional medicine in primary care for three commonly encountered clinical conditions. DESIGN: An international multicenter, prospective, observational study in a real world medical setting comparing the effectiveness of homeopathy with conventional medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty (30) investigators with conventional medical licenses at six clinical sites in four countries enrolled 500 consecutive patients with at least one of the following three complaints: (1) upper respiratory tract complaints including allergies; (2) lower respiratory tract complaints including allergies; or (3) ear complaints. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes criterion was the response to treatment, defined as cured or major improvement after 14 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes criteria were: (1) rate of recovery; (2) occurrence of adverse events; (3) patient satisfaction; and (4) length of consultation. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-six (456) patient visits were compared: 281 received homeopathy, 175 received conventional medicine. The response to treatment as measured by the primary outcomes criterion for patients receiving homeopathy was 82.6%, for conventional medicine it was 68%. Improvement in less than 1 day and in 1 to 3 days was noted in 67.3% of the group receiving homeopathy and in 56.6% of those receiving conventional medicine. The adverse events for those treated with conventional medicine was 22.3% versus 7.8% for those treated with homeopathy. Seventy-nine percent (79.0%) of patients treated with homeopathy were very satisfied and 65.1% of patients treated with conventional, medicine were very satisfied. In both treatment groups 60% of cases had consultations lasting between 5 and 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Homeopathy appeared to be at least as effective as conventional medical care in the treatment of patients with the three conditions studied.

Physicians' attitudes toward complementary or alternative medicine: a regional survey.

BACKGROUND: A survey exploring attitudes toward complementary or alternative medicine was distributed to 295 family physicians in the Chesapeake region. Physicians were asked about their knowledge, usage of, and training in complementary therapies and what evidence they expected of complementary medicine to aid in accepting these therapies. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed at three separate conferences of family physicians with 180 physicians responding. RESULTS: More than 70 to 90 percent of the physicians considered complementary medical therapies, such as diet and exercise, behavioral medicine, counseling and psychotherapy, and hypnotherapy, to be legitimate medical practices. A majority had referred patients to nonphysicians for these therapies or used some of them in their own practices. Homeopathy, Native American medicine, and traditional Oriental medicine were not favored as legitimate medical practice. Areas where physicians had the least amount of training were most likely to be considered as alternative medicine by them. Seventy percent of responding physicians expressed interest in training in multiple areas of alternative medicine. Additionally, there was a strong positive correlation between evidentiary rules physicians believed should apply to orthodox medicine and to alternative or complementary medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this survey show a high interest in alternative and complementary medicine by physicians. Some therapies are already being used by these physicians, and training is desired in most areas.