A Qualitative Investigation of Provers' Experiences of Participation in Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials.

BACKGROUND: Information on homeopathic medicines is derived from "provings" or homeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs), in which people (often homeopaths and homeopathy students) are invited to take an unnamed and often untested highly diluted and serially succussed substance, and record in detail their experiences and perceived effects. HPTs are assumed to have an "excellent safety record", but there has been no academic research to date into provers' experiences of participating in an HPT. AIMS: This qualitative study aimed to explore the lived experience of participation in an HPT. It is hoped that the results from this study will inform the future conduct of HPTs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person, by phone or via Skype, according to the interviewees' preferences. Thematic analysis was used for the generation of themes. RESULTS: Eight former provers were interviewed from across the European Union (EU) and Australia. Of these, seven were practicing homeopaths and one was not a practitioner. Overarching themes were identified as: (1) the ethical conduct of HPTs, and (2) the impact of participation in HPTs. CONCLUSION: Former provers who participated in this study reported enthusiasm for, and trust in, the proving process. However, some also reported adverse events, which varied in intensity and duration. The process of gaining fully informed consent for participation in an HPT is complex and there were examples of both failure and inadequacy in terms of informed consent and support mechanisms. RECOMMENDATIONS: The researchers recommend that HPTs are subject to ethical approval processes and that consent is fully informed and ongoing. It is also recommended that appropriate and robust support mechanisms be developed.

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

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.