An Assessment of a Public Health Initiative of Homeopathy for Primary Teething.

BACKGROUND: During primary teething, children suffer from running nose, mild fever, diarrhoea and other mild irritations and inflammations. A public health programme, 'Homoeopathy for the Healthy Child', was undertaken on a pilot basis focusing on promotion of healthy teething by provision of home-based care through six pre-identified homeopathic medicines for complaints commonly observed during primary teething. This article assesses the feasibility of this programme and reports the impact of this initiative on teething profile in children and episodes of diarrhoea and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) were trained in child care and usage of a kit comprising six medicines, namely Calcarea phosphoricum 6X (CP), Ferrum phosphoricum 3X, Magnesium phosphoricum 6X, Belladonna 30C, Chamomilla 30C and Podophyllum 30C. Calcarea phosphoricum was given regularly to each participating child from 6 months to 1 year of age. Home-based care for diarrhoea, URTI and mild fever was provided by ASHAs using the other five medicines in the kit. Dentition pattern and diarrhoea/URTI episodes were recorded over a period of the next 12 months. RESULTS: Eleven thousand four-hundred and twenty-six children were followed up regularly. Amongst those who enrolled at 6-7 months, a larger proportion of children were approaching expected teething in successive months as compared with children enrolled at 12 months, thus indicating that teething delays, if any, were overcome during this period. Incidence of diarrhoea and URTI showed decrease in the months after enrolment. Children responded favourably to the medicines given by ASHAs at the time of diarrhoea/URTI episodes, and ASHAs expressed satisfaction with the programme. CONCLUSION: An approach with regular use of CP and home-based care with homeopathy through health workers for common problems in teething children is acceptable to the community and enhances outreach of services to the public at large. Observations in terms of the healthy teething period may be further validated through studies of homeopathy with suitable comparator group.

Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: a comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to conventional treatment in acute respiratory and ear complaints in a primary care setting. METHODS: The study was designed as an international, multi-centre, comparative cohort study of non-randomised design. Patients, presenting themselves with at least one chief complaint: acute (< or = 7 days) runny nose, sore throat, ear pain, sinus pain or cough, were recruited at 57 primary care practices in Austria (8), Germany (8), the Netherlands (7), Russia (6), Spain (6), Ukraine (4), United Kingdom (10) and the USA (8) and given either homeopathic or conventional treatment. Therapy outcome was measured by using the response rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing 'complete recovery' or 'major improvement' in each treatment group. The primary outcome criterion was the response rate after 14 days of therapy. RESULTS: Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment. The majority of patients in both groups reported their outcome after 14 days of treatment as complete recovery or major improvement (H: 86.9%; C: 86.0%; p = 0.0003 for non-inferiority testing). In the per-protocol set (H: 576 and C: 540 patients) similar results were obtained (H: 87.7%; C: 86.9%; p = 0.0019). Further subgroup analysis of the full analysis set showed no differences of response rates after 14 days in children (H: 88.5%; C: 84.5%) and adults (H: 85.6%; C: 86.6%). The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of the primary outcome criterion was 1.40 (0.89-2.22) in children and 0.92 (0.63-1.34) in adults. Adjustments for demographic differences at baseline did not significantly alter the OR. The response rates after 7 and 28 days also showed no significant differences between both treatment groups. However, onset of improvement within the first 7 days after treatment was significantly faster upon homeopathic treatment both in children (p = 0.0488) and adults (p = 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions occurred more frequently in adults of the conventional group than in the homeopathic group (C: 7.6%; H: 3.1%, p = 0.0032), whereas in children the occurrence of adverse drug reactions was not significantly different (H: 2.0%; C: 2.4%, p = 0.7838). CONCLUSION: In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment.