Homoeopathy in primary care: Self-reported change in health status

Attena, Francesco; Giudice, N. Del; Verrengia, G.; Granito, C.

doi:10.1016/s0965-2299(00)90781-7

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Superimposable to this finding is the report showing that 7 out of 10 patients visiting a Norwegian homeopath reported a meaningful improvement in their main complaint 6 months after the initial consultation (111). Similar or even higher percentages of patients declaring their satisfaction with homeopathic cure were reported by others (112–116). Interestingly, a study was undertaken to investigate the preferences of patients with asthma for various treatment modalities showed that the extent to which the doctor treated the patient as a whole person was also a statistically significant attribute for the choice of homeopathic therapy versus conventional therapy, even if clinical results are perceived as equivalent (8).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Immunology and Homeopathy. 4. Clinical Studies—Part 2

Bellavite

Ortolani

Pontarollo

et al. 2000

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clinical studies on the effectiveness of homeopathy in respiratory allergy (18 randomized trials and 9 observational studies) are described. The literature of common immunologic disorders including also upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) and otorhinolaryngology (reported in part 1), is evaluated and discussed. Most of initial evidence-based research was addressed to the question of whether homeopathic high dilutions are placebos or possess specific effects, but this question has been often equivocal and is still a matter of debate. The evidence demonstrates that in some conditions homeopathy shows significant promise, e.g. Galphimia glauca (low dilutions/potencies) in allergic oculorhinitis, classical individualized homeopathy in otitis and possibly in asthma and allergic complaints, and a few low-potency homeopathic complexes in sinusitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. A general weakness of evidence derives from lack of independent confirmation of reported trials and from presence of conflicting results, as in case of homeopathic immunotherapy and of classical homeopathy for URTI. The suitable methods to evaluate homeopathy effectiveness, without altering the setting of cure, are also analyzed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Immunology and Homeopathy. 4. Clinical Studies—Part 2

Bellavite

Ortolani

Pontarollo

et al. 2000

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extensive data on adherence rates in CAM are not available, but one small prospective study of people using homeopathy found that 84% of patients were satisfied with and 83% reported adhering to their treatment (Attena, Del Giudice, Verrengia, & Granito, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment appraisals and beliefs predict adherence to complementary therapies: A prospective study using a dynamic extended self‐regulation model

Bishop

Yardley

Lewith

2008

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design: A prospective self-report questionnaire study was carried out with a 3-month follow-up period.Methods: 240 patients from 5 CAM clinics completed self-report questionnaire measures of treatment beliefs, illness perceptions and treatment appraisals at baseline. 3 months later they completed self-report measures of adherence to therapists' recommendations concerning attendance, remedy use and lifestyle changes.

show abstract

“…In order to gain a better understanding of homoeopathy's efficacy, ideally the form of treatment (complex/individualised), the name and potency of remedy and individual diseases/ symptoms should all be specified. None of the outcome studies analysed combine all of these – only Itamura 23 and Attena 15 distinguish between complex or individualised homoeopathy; only Sevar 18 specifies the effect of a particular remedy; only Itamura 23 and Relton and Weatherley‐Jones 31 point to specific diseases/symptoms (although these require further study) and none detail the potency of the remedy. The lack of specificity in these respects results in great variation between studies, making it difficult to distinguish whether a particular homoeopathic remedy is effective for a particular disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attena asked 648 Italian patients to fill out cards detailing their clinical diagnosis after their first consultation with a pluralist homoeopath 15 . A year later patients rated their health and well‐being according to Question 2 of the SF‐36.…”

Section: The Lay Perspective: Clinical Outcome Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%