• Disclaimer
  • Clever Homeopathy
  • Homeopathy
  • About Me
  • Contact
  • Publications

Clever Homeopathy

~ A minimal dose with a big effect!

Clever Homeopathy

Tag Archives: CAM

Trauma following the Forest fire infernos

31 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in General and Other

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CAM, Forest fires, homeopathy, PTSD, trauma

 

In the wake of the recent forest fires, the devastating losses and destruction, the after-math leaves more than burnt soil to clear away. While many have lost loved ones, their existence or homes in the recent infernos, many of the survivors, helpers and fire fighters may now, as a consequence to their experiences of the traumatic events, exhibit symptoms related to PTSD.

 

PTSD, post-traumatic-stress-disorder, is the label that has been given to the symptom complex that may evolve from the exposure to, and experiences of a terrorist attack, active warfare, natural catastrophe, accident, or other events that may leave an individual severely traumatized.

 

 

Sufferers of such a trauma syndrome will exhibit characteristic symptoms of anxiety, overwhelming states of worry, fear, panic, phobia, compulsion, or depression. These may be expressed in the form of sleeplessness, nightmares, distressing recollection of experiences, irritation, increased anger, difficulty concentrating, emotional numbing, and retreating from social circles and family. Sufferers may become pessimistic about life, their future, may be disinterested in their environment, and may become aggressive and self-destructive. These symptoms may be as dilapidating that they may leave an individual unable to lead a normal life. Many people cannot return to, or take up a normal job, cannot live harmoniously with their loved ones, and find the day to day proceedings unbearable and unmanageable. Not infrequently is it that sufferers resort to addictive behavior and detach from their families.

 

Initially recognized in Vietnam -War – veterans, PTSD was only acknowledged and classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in 1980. However, the symptom complex of post-traumatic stress syndrome existed much earlier.

 

When the era of trains began and passenger transportation was taken to the rails, this innovative form of travel brought forth a new type of anxiety disorder. Travel by train was louder and faster than all prior forms of transportation, and passengers reaction to the noise, motion and accidents gave rise to a symptom complex soon denoted as the ‘Railway spine’. The sufferers however, where not the physically injured, but were eyewitnesses or unharmed victims of carriage collisions, complaining of physical symptoms such as anxiety, irritability, disturbed sleep, memory impairment, lack of the ability to concentrate, weakness, numbness and even physical pain along their limbs and spine, stiffness, headaches and neuralgia.

 

Likewise, soldiers of war complained of a very similar symptom complex that doctors described as ‘Soldier’s heart’. Civilians, having experienced and survived the World Wars were referred to as suffering of ‘Shell shock’. In today’s day and time the prevalence of this characteristic symptom complex has nowhere diminished. The symptomatology can be seen in victims of car accidents that are suffering of what is denoted as ‘whiplash’. Victims and witnesses of terror attacks and combat personnel of the wars of more recent times, and individuals that have survived and experienced natural catastrophes such as earthquakes or forest fires have shown forms of this specific cluster of similar symptoms that are part of the complex known today as ‘Post-traumatic-stress-disorder’.

 

The treatment for PTSD, as postulated by the conventional medical sphere, sees the use of medicinal and psychoanalytical approaches assisting individuals at alleviating their suffering and managing the syndrome. The use of CAM, complementary and alternative medicine, sees increasing numbers of patients successfully treated for their symptoms by meditation, relaxation, exercise therapy, TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine), herbal medicine, homeopathy medicine and others.

 

The CAM therapies are holistic therapeutic approaches that take into consideration the totality of an individual. Physical, mental and emotional aspects find inclusion in the analysis of a patient and his or her suffering. CAM approaches aim to achieve amelioration and recovery of the patients’ state on all levels, the mental, the physical and the emotional. Hence treating the patient in his or her entirety, as a whole.

 

The recent wild fires have caused havoc to the lives of many, and have done irreparable damage. Those suffering of symptoms related to PTSD in the aftermath of these tragic and traumatic events should get help. Sufferers can be relieved of their dilapidating symptoms that impact not only the individual, but his or her family and closest environment. A recovery, to a lifestyle that is manageable can be attained. Sufferers should not suffer alone. There is help, and it should be sought!

 

 

 

First published at: Gentle Help for PTSD

Randomization and the non-specific / placebo effects – weaknesses of the RCT

17 Friday May 2013

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in Research

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

CAM, effects, homeopathy, non-specific, placebo, randomization, RCT

Scientific research has not been able to dispel the persistent criticism opposing the homeopathic treatment approach. Critics continue to proclaim that homeopathy simply cannot work because scientific research has not been able to provide evidence that there is an active agent contained in the ultra highly diluted and potentized remedies. Yet, despite the fact that the modus operandi, the action mechanism of homeopathy, is still not clear and until today cannot yet be explained, it is indisputable that patients have, and are, finding recovery from a treatment with homeopathic remedies.

The lack of evidence of efficacy though, is not only due to the lack of an explanation of how this treatment approach works, but in principle appears to be due to the weaknesses and flaws that originate from the methods used to trial homeopathy. The primary testing tool used in research is the RCT, the randomised controlled trial. It is considered the “gold” standard of conventional scientific research because it is believed to minimize variables that may be accountable for external impacts on the trial outcomes [1]. Any intervention seeking to be acknowledged as safe and efficacious requires to be evaluated by this model of investigation [1]. Yet for investigations into holistic interventions, that are sensitive of a holistic symptomatology and an individualized appraisal, as is the homeopathic treatment, this methodology is unsuited. Until today, research into homeopathic treatment interventions has disclosed weaknesses and flaws where the RCT was used to conduct this investigation, and trials have continued to report inconsistent outcomes of treatment efficacy.

The discrepancies to the RCTs´ application to CAM interventions may lie in the fundamental modes of conduction that are inherent to the design, and are already denoted by the very nomenclature of the methodology.

Randomization refers to the trial participants´ allocation, by chance, to the respective treatment or control group. The participant does not know which group he is in, or whether he is receiving the trial medication or the control, which usually is a placebo [2]; a remedy that is devoid of an active treatment substance, but otherwise indistinguishable from the trial medication [3].

Randomization complicates a study seeking to investigate a holistic treatment intervention for various reasons. Patients that seek homeopathic treatment frequently chose homeopathy after they have tried everything else and have not found alleviation [4]. They make a conscious and informed choice to see a holistic practitioner and have hopes, beliefs and expectations of this treatment [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]. In a randomized controlled trial, patient choice is not, cannot, be respected and the participant has to be allocated by chance, in order to avoid potential bias due to, for example, the above mentioned distinct and personal opinions and judgements of the individual participants. Yet, within these “external” aspects influential on the participant, may lie an adjunctive curative potential that in a holistic treatment becomes a valuable factor supplemental to the therapeutic impact.

A trial situation therefore, does not reflect true clinical practice [9], as by randomizing participants, this decisive factor is removed.  The belief to be actively choosing a treatment that coincides with ones faith and experience is a psychologically potent igniter to recuperation sentiments and dispositions that may spark self-healing influences within the individual [7]; [8].

These factors are the so called, non-specific effects, impacts that are in not related to the treatment intervention, but may exert an influence on the study findings [5]; [7]; [8]. As such, for example, participants may believe they are in the placebo group, and thus may make negative judgements of the experiences they have during the trial, simply because the trial situation feels different to the normal experiences of clinical practice. The same holds true for the closer engagement of the practitioner with the patient, that is absent in the process of a trial [8]. This different experience too may have an impact on how the patient in a trial situation perceives his participation and the effect of the intervention or of the placebo depending on the group he or she is allocated to [7].

It cannot be ignored that such non-specific effects exist. Therefore, a research method that seeks to minimize these influences, cannot deliver a true replication of a situation that we have in customary clinical practice. It is though, exactly this that the randomized controlled trial seeks to do. The intervention is extrapolated from its common context in which it is habitually applied and experienced, and as a consequence this potentially may flaw, at the very root, the outcomes reported by an RCT.

While the specific effects are those considered to come solely from the medicinal substance investigated [10], such non-specific effects are commonly not acknowledged in the spheres of conventional scientific research, and are therefore generally attributed to the placebo, the inactive control in a study [11].

The control group is used to isolate the effects that come only from the tested intervention; the effects specific of the treatment investigated [10].  The participants of the placebo group are subjected to the same procedures as the participants of the treatment group. The only difference is that the medication given to the placebo group is inert, that is, is lacking the active ingredient [3]. The effects noticed in this sample are then subtracted from the study outcomes, purportedly leaving only the impact of the intervention on the treatment group. So it has been assumed for a long time.

Yet, it is increasingly being acknowledged that there is a placebo effect, an impact of the non-specific factors. The RCT is ignorant of these, as its design has not developed to be sensitive to such effects. Its focus is on the specific impact of the trial medication only. Yet, even by telling a participant he has a 50% chance of being in the treatment group, he or she may be influenced in one way or another [7], and as a consequence his or her reported outcomes may be affected. This delivers a measurement, as in no way, an individual is completely neutral and isolated. Therefore, although the trial situation is one different from true clinical practice, and the trial experiences differ to habitual therapeutic settings, a participants own thoughts, habits, common senses, beliefs, experiences and those instigated by others, or by his surroundings do have an impact [5]; [6]; [7]; [8].

Most RCTs have been conducted without giving any value to the influence of a placebo, yet a placebo effect occurring in a trial is measureable. By including a third study arm in a trial, a potential placebo effect can be calculated. This arm must consist of a group that is left untreated, frequently denoted as a `waiting list´ group [3]. The measurement of the placebo effect is then achieved by comparison of the findings in the placebo arm to the outcomes in the non-treatment group. With this evaluation, the findings obtained from a trial investigating CAM interventions, would potentially deliver outcomes that were more genuine and probably more consistent, as they would abstract a major variable that is too often not considered in research.

For the practices of CAM though this still means that the entire scope of the impact of the non-specific effects is still not accounted for, as randomization eliminates these. But while a third arm could deliver better measures, this procedure does not diminish other weaknesses of such a trial. There is further, significant, potential for falsification of studies investigating CAM, that may originate from the incorrect application of the fundamental principles of the investigated health care approach and are too often not respected.

Therefore, any research into the holistic alternative therapies, and homeopathy in particular, using the RCT is doomed to deliver outcomes that are weakened by the methodological design of the tool used, and it is consequently not surprising that the results of such trials and studies are inconsistent.

References:

[1] Golden, I. (2012). Beyond Randomized controlled trials: Evidence in Complementary Medicine. Journal of evidence-based complementary & alternative medicine, 17(1), 72-75. doi: 10.1177/2156587211429351

[2] Corrigan, P. & Salzer, M. (2003). The conflict between random assignment and treatment preference: implications for internal validity. Evaluation and program planning, 26(2), 109-121. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7189(03)00014-4

[3] Horn, B., Balk, J. & Gold, J. (2011). Revisiting the sham: Is it all smoke and mirrors?, Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine, 2011, 4 pages. doi:10.1093/ecam/neq074

[4] H:MC2. (n.d). A check without balance. Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st century. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.hmc21.org/#/check-without-balance/4543591988

[5] Kaptchuk, T., Stason, W., Davis, R., Legedza, A., Schnyer, R., Kerr, C., Stone, D., Nam Hyun, B., Kirsch, I. & Goldman, R. (2006) Sham device v inert pill: randomized controlled trial of two placebo treatments. BMJ,332. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38726.603310.55

[6] Nuhn, T., Lüdtke, R. & Geraedts, M. (2010). Placebo effect sizes in homeopathic compared to conventional drugs – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Homeopathy, 99, 76-82. doi: 10.1016{j.homp.2009.11.002

[7] Relton, C. (2013). Implications of the ˈplacebo effectˈ for CAM research. Complementary therapies in medicine, 21(2), 121-124. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2012.12.011

[8] Teixeira, M., Guedes, C., Barreto, P. & Martins, M. (2010). The placebo effect and Homeopathy. Homeopathy, 99, 119-129. doi: 10.1016./j.homp.2010.02.001

[9] Vickers, A. (1995). What conclusion should we draw from the data?. British Homeopathic Journal, 84(2), 95-101. doi: 10.1016/S0007-0785(95)80039-5

[10] Walach, H. (2001a). Das Wirksamkeitsparadox in der Komplementärmedizin. Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde, 8, 193-195. doi:10.1159/000057221

[11] Enck, P. & Klosterhalfen, S. (2013). The placebo response in clinical trials – the current state of play. Complementary therapies in medicine, 21(2), 98-101. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2012.12.010

Science, evidence-based medicine and CAM…..it´s controversial!

08 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in Research

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

alternative and complementary medicine, CAM, clinical evidence, efficacy, evidence-based medicine, paradigm, science, scientificity

Introduction

Patients are increasingly making their own healthcare their own responsibility, and are becoming more selective in what treatment and therapies they use in their recovery from illness. Dissatisfaction with conventional treatment that is indifferent of a holistic view of health, may produce more or less severe side-effects, or even concomitant diseases, makes patients seek new approaches for relief of their suffering. Frequently, the choice is an alternative and complementary medical discipline [1] [2] [3].

This happens much to the dismay of practitioners and representatives of orthodox medicine. They view the practices of alternative and complementary medicine critically. They describe CAM as being unscientific and treatments as lacking proof of effectiveness [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Yet, this critique itself needs to be viewed critically. The impression is that it follows a distinct purpose, may be far from justified and not necessarily reflects the best interest for patients.

Who says what science is?

Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda, beside others, are folk medicines that have withstood the test of time, and are in use since 2000 to 3000 years, treating their patients successfully with a holistic view of healthcare and disease [4] [7]. Only very recently, compared to the time-span of existence of the old folk medicines, came a novel, modern therapeutic approach, termed western medicine. This medical branch darted to the top, and became acknowledged as the principal approach to health care, having overtaken the older, traditional medical systems and having become, by implementation of frameworks and paradigms, largely the only form of patient health care acknowledged as scientific. The older, traditional treatment forms have increasingly, more or less successfully, been pushed into the periphery of medical practice, and are being discredited as being non-scientific according to the scientific standards that have evolved with the rising of this newer, allopathic treatment approach [4]. As such the newer western approach has become the conventional, allopathic medical system, and all other practices of medicine, the unconventional or alternative therapies [8].

The conventional approach demands all other treatment approaches provide evidence of scientificity of their practices, to be measured against those newly implemented conventional standards, in order to be acknowledgeable as safe treatment practice [4]. As such an evidence-based practice is sought to be created, whereby “individual clinical experience” is teamed “with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research” [9](p.52). By insistence on this, practitioners of the allopathic medical route have over the years manifest their practice as the “superior” form of treatment, as scientific, evidence-based, against the methods of old that have been in practice much longer than the creation of the “young” allopathic medical concept, but do not meet up to the new scientific paradigm.

Viewed from a historical perspective, according to Riley [4], “the emphasis on science was intended to eliminate the unorthodox kinds of medicine” (p.552), to further modernization and improve the quality of medical practices. In his article Riley [4] demonstrates with the example of Thailand how, in particular from the USA, educational boards and foundations funded the establishment of orthodox medical schools and systems, seeking to promote digression toward the newer system of health care. In the consequence of such progression that took place in many countries during the colonization, as Riley mentions, an eradication of folk medical practices took place. This development was most successful in underdeveloped countries. In China and India, for example, this was less effectual, as the indigenous treatments there, TCM and Ayurveda respectively, had been successful since thousands of years without any dependence on scientific proof of efficacy [4].

CAM and science

The call for evidence of scientificity of the unconventional practices has in its persistence suggested that science is immediately a true fact and that consequently a therapy that is measurable by the scientific framework of conventional medicine, is equally as immediately a treatment that is efficacious [4]. This is not so. While it must be acknowledged that with the development and progression of science have come life-saving treatments that were yet unknown to folk medical practices, such as the identification and development of penicillin, it has to be noted that medical science has limits, and does not provide a cure-all for all diseases [4] [6]. In fact, the extent of “curing” disease under the label of medical science has been relatively small, the greatest praise having to be accredited to the improvement of hygienic conditions [4].

The demand for scientific evidence is flawed at the fundamental base-line of the claim, because, “although discrimination in the name of science is practiced, it is difficult to find an explicit basis for characterizing one specific medical system as more scientific than another” [4](p.549). Furthermore, there is lack of consensus as to what is to be considered as proof of evidence [5].

The notion therefore, that all therapeutic treatment approaches to health care, should be applicable to methods of allopathic testing and be thus supported by an evidence-base is unrealizable; too different are the underlying philosophies of the different disciplines [3]. Yet, to assume that the disciplines of CAM entirely lack evidence of efficacy is incorrect and to adopt the presupposition that the allopathic practices do is equally deceptive.

Investigations into the efficacy of CAM therapies have been and are problematic. Science follows the concept of a “materialistic causality” [3](p.669), and the CAM therapies fall short of fitting into the framework this concept of materialistic causality has generated. It appears that changes in the inherent world-view of the predominant scientific paradigm are necessary in order for the concept of CAM to be evaluable [10] [3]. The core of Sciences´ primary conflicts with the CAM practices, demonstrates dissonance of the conventional concept of standardization with that of individualization that is fundamental to the alternative, non-conventional practices [11]. As such therefore, the gold standard of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) as the principle tool for evaluation of efficacy of a treatment approach is rendered inapplicable, to investigations into holistic medical concepts of health [11].

Alternative therapies such as homeopathy, for example, have proceeded to adopt the testing methodologies inherent of conventional trials and studies, and are following the standard procedures as outlined by the Consort statement [13] (plus extensions [16]), but have extended investigations to include data specific of homeopathic treatment practice, by reporting on aspects that are outlined in the REDHOT guidelines [14].

While most trials and studies into CAM are undertaken with the focus of investigation being on the efficacy of the alternative treatment compared to placebo, Walach [5] insists that testing CAM therapies with the RCT should follow a different structure. He stresses that the holistic treatment is better tested against the efficacy of a treatment of another discipline as opposed to that of placebo. Riley [4] considers the placebo a bias to the claim of scientificity itself. “Placebos depend upon a patient`s (and perhaps a physician`s) belief that a therapy is likely to work” [4](p.556); a subjective experience, and therefore, science itself has an `unscientific´ aspect.

Is allopathy EBM?

Beside all the heated discussions and the persistent demand for evidence-based medical practices of CAM, one issue frequently receives little attention, namely, the extent to which the orthodox medical practices are in fact practicing what they preach and provide scientific evidence of efficacy. LaRiccia [8] and Patel [3] point out that few good quality trials exist that have investigated CAM therapies, but fail not to stress that this is likewise an issue in the evaluation of those practices described as evidence-based or scientific.

“Clinical Evidence comprises a database of high-quality, rigorously developed systematic overviews assessing the benefits and harms of treatments” [15](n.p.), and has proceeded to categorise the effectiveness of 3000 treatments with an astonishing and in fact shocking outcome. The data exhibited reflects to what extent treatments are evidence-based. The outcome of this categorisation has shown that a mere 11% of trials and studies show beneficial outcome, 23% are considered likely to be beneficial with the remaining 66% ranging from questionable, of unknown effectiveness, to ineffective or harmful [15].

Chart: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/mce/file/newchart20111028-1.jpg

Chart from: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisations.html

 

This elevation draws into question the justification for the persistent and resolute demand for evidence of efficacy of CAM treatments. With so little profound evidence available from so called scientific medicine, the legitimacy of critique from the medical orthodoxy, concerning an insufficiently existent evidence base of the non-conventional practices, is questionable and appears shameful.

Why therefore, is the insistence on proof of efficacy of the CAM practices so persistently demanded, in particular from the conventional medical spheres? The reason becomes quite obvious if one takes into consideration the increase of interest in, acceptance of and use of CAM disciplines by ever increasing patient numbers. CAM has advanced to become somewhat of a threat to conventional medical practice [3].

The therapies of CAM are in existence because patients demand treatments outside of the conventional realm of medical practice [10]. Patients notice and experience that orthodox medicine has flaws [6]. They are not blind to the impact a course of treatment makes on them, to adverse effects or to the concomitant developments that frequently originate from the mainstream treatment of diseases.  Patients have become sensitized for their own well-being and health, and have therefore become critical of the handling of their discomforts and ailments [5] [6]. Consequently patients demand to be treated holistically, gently, alternatively.

Conclusion

Patel [2] stresses that an integrative approach to treatment may be most valuable to the patient.  He emphasizes that the factor `time of existence´ of a discipline is inappropriate as measure of efficacy, and that testing with standard scientific means is necessary for the acknowledgement of a non-conventional practice. Yet, he maintains that there are many challenges to such evaluation, and that CAM therapies should not aim at providing evidence of being a superior approach to healthcare. Rather should emphasis be on discovering “ the strengths and weaknesses of each system in order to be able to show that specific types of cases should be treated by specific holistic therapies, while other specific types of cases should be treated by scientific medical physicians” [2](pp.173-174).

If CAM practices were found to fully comply and be testable with the standard scientific methodologies, the alternative and non-conventional therapies would lose what makes them `different´. If CAM became scientifically standardised according to the orthodox scientific paradigm it would have to be incorporated into mainstream medicine and would consequently become conventional. The CAM practices would have to be reclassified, as specialities of conventional practice [10]. Is this at all favoured?

LaRiccia [8] points out that “the lack of RCT´s does not disprove a therapy”, and albeit Patel´s [2] call for CAMs compliance with the scientific methodologies of investigation, the traditional medical practices offer valuable concepts of health care. Practitioners cannot ignore the evidence of efficacy of a treatment that has been practiced successfully, and is documented by experience in practice, only on account of philosophical unacceptability within a fixed superimposed framework. It is the currently inexplicable that promotes investigation and has “in the past, been linked with significant scientific advances” [3](p.669).

References:

[1] Michlig, M, Ausfeld-Hafter, B. & Busato, A. (2008) Patient satisfaction with primary care: A comparison between conventional care and traditional Chinese medicine [online] article from Complementary therapies in medicine last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[2] Patel, M. (1987a) Evaluation of holistic medicine [online] article from Soc. Sci. & Med. Last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[3] Patel, M. (1987b) Problems in the evaluation of alternative medicine [online] article from Soc. Sci. & Med. Last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[4] Riley, J. (1977) Western medicine´s attempt to become more scientific: Examples from the United States and Thailand [online] article from Soc. Sci. & Med. Last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[5] Walach, H. (2009a) The campaign against CAM and the notion of “evidence-based” [online] article from The Journal of alternative and complementary medicine last accessed September 2012 at URL http://ehis.ebscohost.com

[6] Walach, H. (2009b) The campaign against CAM – a reason to be proud [online] article from The Journal of holistic healthcare last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.ecpm-europe.ch

[7] Patwardhan, B. Warude, D, Pushpangadan, P. & Bhat, N. (2005) Ayurveda and traditional Chinese medicine: A comparative overview [online] article from Advance Access Publication last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[8] LaRiccia, P. (2003) Point of view: A Physician´s experience with integrating complementary and alternative medicine: Opportunities, problems & directions [online] article from Seminars in integrative medicine last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[9] White, B. (2004) Making evidence-based medicine doable in everyday practice [online] article from Family practice management last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.aafp.org/fpm

[10] Chez A. & Jonas, W. (1997) The challenge of CAM [online] article from Am J Obstet Gynecol last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[11] Yamey, G. (2000) Can complementary medicine be evidence-based? [online] article from West J Med last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[12] Huffard, D. (2003) Evaluating complementary & alternative medicine: The limits of Science and Scientists [online] article from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics last accessed September 2012 at URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

[13] Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. (http://www.consort-statement.org)

[14] Dean, M., Coulter, M., Fisher, P., Jobst, K. & Walach, H. (2007) Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): A supplement to CONSORT [online] from The Journal of alternative and complementary medicine last accessed September 2012 at URL http://www.audesapere.in

[15] BMJ (2012) What conclusions has Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn´t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? [online] article from Clinical Evidence last accessed September 2012 at URL http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com

[16] Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trial. BMJ 2010;340:c869. (http://www.consort-statement.org)

Controversial Integration

01 Saturday Sep 2012

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in Improve Homeopathy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Allopathy, CAM, GP, homeopathy, Integration, inter-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, primary health care

The increasing demand for alternative and complementary medical treatment requests further discussions on the integration of CAM into conventional primary health care. The existent controversy concerning safety, lack of proof of effectiveness of the alternative therapy and in certain cases the absence of a regulatory body [1] [2] [3], have in the past raised heated discussions against the integration of CAM. But the increased interest of the public is impacting on the `conventional´ consultations, resulting in alterations of many a general practitioners stance toward CAM [3]. Patients´ quest for more autonomy in their health management, a fear of adverse reactions and the awareness of limitations to the allopathic treatment, has led patients to self-medication with alternative remedies and to dispense on private visits to CAM practitioners, outside the health system [3] [4]. Beyond that it is the congruence of the alternative approach to patients´ most personal beliefs and values, and the knowledge of a safe and effective treatment that is at the same time cautious of the patients´ orientation toward leading a healthy life [5] that has increased the awareness and acceptance of CAM therapies. General practitioners have recognized this trend, since they are often the first contact patients turn to for information regarding alternative therapies, and have attempted to adapt to this new tendency. Many that would in the past have had inadequate knowledge of the alternative and complementary methods have done training, permitting them to provide sufficient information about the alternative treatments available and the possible effects to the patients´ specific ailment [1] [2] [3].

One major step toward the integration of CAM is communication. This applies both to the practitioner-patient relationship and the cooperation between general practitioner and CAM-provider [3] [5] [6]. The need for collaboration between the two strands of health care practice is evident and could permit understanding and acceptance, resulting in an efficient service meeting patient requests [6].  Referral to CAM-practitioners usually occurs where a wider range of treatment options is sought to be available to patients, and where allopathic treatment has been ineffective or has brought forth adverse reactions and side-effects [1]. For the general practitioner to be able to respond significantly to patients´ interrogations, about alternative and complementary methods of treatment, requires handing the power of individual and personal decision making, back to the patient. As such it is assured that the ethical principle of autonomy is met and one essential point for successful integration of CAM into health care is fulfilled [2] [6]. Non-maleficience is another ethical factor that is thoroughly questioned when discussing integration as there is a lack of agreement over the scientific evidence of available CAM therapies [1] [7]. Available evidence of the effectiveness of CAM practice has already suggested a legitimate incorporation into primary health care but is still questioned due to the differences to conventional practice such as conception and interpretation, context of health and ailment, as well as the deviation in the relationship to science [2].To the general practitioner the CAM therapies are often still a challenge, because here practice is taking place in a zone that lies outside of the boundaries of conventional health care, in an area where the general practitioners training may not fully permit him to accept and understand the restricted but growing scientific body of evidence available [3] [7].

It has also been questioned if integration of CAM into conventional health care is, beyond questioning the feasibility of it, at all to be aspired [2]. Profound alterations could occur if evidence-based CAM treatments were fully integrated. By repressing CAM into the boundaries of conventional practice, CAM may be altered in its foundations, becoming standardized, resulting in the loss of it as an alternative option, and a merging of the two health strands beyond the identifiable features of CAM-practice [2]. Pro integration stands another factor, that of the financial aspect. CAM practice has been identified as being potentially cost saving in the long term, since expensive conventional treatments could be avoided and repeat consultations may be reduced. Arguments opposing this are of increased NHS spending on CAM, fearing the possibility of reduction of monetary funding and expenditure on other sectors of medical care [3]. Constituting a major factor opposing integration is the scientific evidence and the lack of research into CAM therapies [1] [2] [3] [5] [6] [7]. Ernest et al [6] go as far as to claim no reliable risk-benefit assessment can be undertaken in CAM to confidently confirm beneficence is greater than the risks possibly associated to CAM treatment. Controversy here exists, as funding for further research that could provide evidence for the safety and efficacy of CAM, usually goes into other sectors of medical research where existent evidence already promises efficient results for the justification of the research to be conducted [6].

In summary there needs to be said that for a successful integration of CAM into conventional health care practice, general practitioners are required to have a basic knowledge, from reliable source, of the CAM therapies that are available [1] [2] [3] [5]. There is the requirement for clear guidelines concerning referral and administrative issues [5]. Referral and cooperation with CAM practitioners has to be reliable, safe and efficient [1] [6]. From the point of view of the CAM practitioner, he needs to continually expand his knowledge in his field and should be prepared to seek assistance and advice on medical issues outside of his field from a general practitioner [1] [5].  For the cooperation of both the CAM provider and the general practitioner there is the need of intensive communication [3]. Conventional diagnosis prior to CAM treatment is an advisable feature of integration [1] and the interaction should result in CAM complementing general practice and vice versa conventional treatment supporting CAM for a successful integration to take place [5].

[Many thanks to Ian Townsend, University of Central Lancashire, U.K., for his assistance with this assignment]

References:

[1] Grace, S., Velmupad, S., Reid, A.,Beirman, R. 2007 CAM practitioners in integrative practice in New South Wales, Australia: A descriptive study [Online] last accessed 27.01.09 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[2] Kerridge, I., McPhee, J. 2004 Ethical and legal issues at the interface of complementary and conventional medicine [Online] last accessed 26.01.09 at URL http://www.mja.com.au

[3] Maha, N., Shaw, A. 2007 Academic doctors’ views of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its role within the NHS: an exploratory qualitative study [Online] last accessed 06.02.09 at URL http://www.biomedcentral.com

[4] Dumoff, A. 2004 Legal issues presented by integrative health care practice [Online] last accessed 27.01.09 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[5] Frenkel, M., Borkan, J. 2003 An approach for integrating complementary-alternative medicine into primary care [Online] last accessed 07.02.09 at URL  http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org

[6] Ernst, E., Cohen, M., Stone, J. 2003 Ethical problems arising in evidence based complementary and alternative medicine [Online] last accessed 21.12.08 at URL http://jme.bmj.com

[7] Adams, K., Cohen, M., Eisenberg, D., Jonsen, A. 2002 Ethical Considerations of Complementary and Alternative Medical Therapies in Conventional Medical Settings [Online] last accessed 26.01.09 at URL http://www.annals.org

Report on the provision of homeopathy in a multi-disciplinary clinic

01 Wednesday Aug 2012

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in Improve Homeopathy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CAM, clinical audit, GP, homeopathy, inter-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, referrals

Abstract:

This report looks at features for consideration in the implementation of a multi-disciplinary clinic, focusing in certain aspects on the service provided by a homeopath.

1. Introduction:

This report is outlining aspects for consideration in a multi-disciplinary surgery. Focus is taken on a homeopathic clinic. Emphasis is on the benefit to patients that extrapolates from working in a multidisciplinary team. This involves an outline of the advantages seen in a homeopathic treatment, details of a possible implementation of qualitative clinical evaluation and management aspects of referral.

The information for the aspects stated came from reports on the GetwellUK scheme, the Marylebone clinic and the Bounds Green Group Practice, the websites of NICE, SOH and the NHS.

2. The benefits of a multi-disciplinary clinic:

The awareness and responsibility of patients for their own health is growing, and the acceptance and request for treatment methods outside the mainstream practice is increasing. More and more surgeries are extending their range of services available to the patient, empowering the patient to choose, and the practitioner to select and refer to an alternative therapy if so desired or necessary.

The CAM disciplines have largely in common the patient-centred aspect that is lost in the GP practice.  Patient perception of the quality of care and satisfaction with alternative treatment has been shown to be increased as the patient – CAM-practitioner interaction is deeper and of longer duration than that with the GP.

Being in a multi – disciplinary team means to its members that they are given more options to complement their treatment, aimed at providing the patient with the best possible treatment available. Therefore having direct access, on site, to practitioners of different disciplines, may promote specialist diagnosis and expertise, and analysis of the holistic and psychosocial context of the patient [1]. There is an increased possibility of matching the patient condition to the appropriate therapy.

2.1 The benefits of Homeopathy in a multi-disciplinary setting:

Homeopathy has frequently proven successful where conventional treatment has failed to provide a satisfactory result [2]. Homeopathy especially, has become increasingly valued because of the holistic approach it takes to a patients´ infliction with illness.

Not only is homeopathy inherent of a treatment benefit to patients, but it has, in multi-disciplinary settings, contributed to a reduction in the requirement of follow-up consultations [3]. Beyond this, homeopathic practice has reduced costs in comparison to single GP practices [4] [5]. Homeopathy can complement, precede or follow onto other therapeutic interventions.

3. Quality assurance:

Inclusion of Homeopathy in a multi-disciplinary setting should be dependent on assurance and implementation of professional best practice that assumes maintenance of confidentiality, ethicality, quality standards of practitioner qualification and therefore registration with the discipline regulating body. In the practice of homeopathy in the U.K., this can, for example, be with the Society of Homeopaths [6].

4. Inter-disciplinary communication and management of referrals:

The demand for alternative therapies is increasing, and most patients use CAM in conjunction with allopathic treatment. One essential factor emerging out of a practitioner collaboration, as is a multi-disciplinary clinic, is therefore the requirement of intense communication.

4.1 Communication:

The practitioner-patient communication gains importance in a multi-disciplinary setting; practitioners have to have in the least a good awareness and knowledge of other therapies in order to be non-judgmental in their interaction with patients when they request inclusion of or referral  to alternative therapies. The exchange between practitioners is also increased in relevance as there is the requirement of inter-disciplinary interaction aimed at identifying an appropriate treatment option for the patient.

Essential for any participant of a multi-disciplinary team is team compatibility, the collaboration with team members.

4.2 Referrals:

Inter-disciplinary communication is one factor required to accomplish effective patient referral; the exchange and processing of patient details also requests good team-play. It is increasingly becoming common practice to employ electronic systems of referral [7] [8]. The transfer of data is safe, secure and imminent, and it is possible to book appointments then and there in the consultation, in accordance with the patient.  Conventional, paper referral has in the past resulted in delay in processing and was subject to frequent cancellation or alteration of appointments by patients [7].

Reasons for referral range from recommendations due to good reaction to a specific treatment of other patients, conventional treatment being ineffective or producing side-effects to selection of a treatment option to complement another treatment approach. Whilst it is commonly the practitioner referring a patient, patients may self-refer and chose a therapy they feel suits them best. The practitioner selects and recommends a treatment that he considers most appropriate to the patient and his presenting complaint.

4.2.1 Referrals by homeopaths:

Relevant information such as prescribed medication, diagnosis, case-history and symptoms should be contained in a referral form that is to be effectively shared with the selected practitioner the patient is to be referred to [9]. At the same time this information could be printed for the patient if referral is sought with a practitioner outside of the multi-disciplinary clinic, for self-referral of the patient to another practitioner, or upon finalization of treatment for the patients´ own record.

Referral stipulates the transfer of responsibility from one practitioner onto another. The homeopath referring a patient is accountable for selecting a practitioner that is competent and best suited for the patient and his complaint, and he, like the homeopath, underlies regulation by a statutory body [9].

5. Clinical audit and evaluation:

It is necessary to constantly, critically observe and evaluate the service that is provided. In a multi-disciplinary setting this may help monitor not only the quality of the service provided to the patient, but may also give relevant information on the progression and success of the activity within the multi-disciplinary team. Audit is about noticing the need for alterations in a service with the aim of improving the delivery of care to patients [10] [11]. It is a means of measuring development, identifying risks and providing assurance. Audit may collect demographic information, may be qualitative, condition specific, or of general, administrative detail [11].

5.1 Audit in homeopathic settings:

Prime attention should be focused on the well-being of the patient therefore feedback from patients is indispensable. One system utilized to evaluate the service provided to patients is the use of MYMOPS that give insight into the patients´ qualitative perception of their well-being at different stages of their treatment [11]. This system of evaluation should be implemented from the beginning of active practice as it will demonstrate the development and progress consistently.

6. Administrative aspects, marketing and employment or self-employment:

There are two possibilities of employment in a clinical setting of integrated health care. One is in paid employment where the clinic provides the location, pays a salary to the practitioner and provides a reception and personnel that handles patient contacts such as making appointments and handling payments. The other is self-employment, where the practitioner rents accommodation at the clinic, jointly with other practitioners pays administrative personnel, or handles organizational matters personally. Whilst in the former model the practitioner receives a fixed payment for the provision of his service, in the latter the practitioner decides what he charges each patient. A similar structure applies to marketing, publication materials and advertisements. The costs of these expenses are likely to be carried by the clinic where the practitioner is employed, whereas in self-employment these are costs that the practitioner has to invest himself.

6.1 Administrative aspects to running a homeopathic clinic:

Consultations should be regulated to take 1.5 hours for an initial and 45 minutes for a follow-up session. Follow-up sessions take place 4 to 5 weeks after each prior consultation. The suggested patient attendance is for 3 to 6 appointments. Should, after that time, no significant progress be perceivable, back-referral to the GP or another discipline is suggested. The costs of homeopathic remedies are subject to inclusion in the cost of treatment.

Bookings should be made with surgery reception. Staff will add the details into the electronic timetable of the practitioner or shall establish contact with the practitioner.

An emergency contact should be provided with staff at the reception or administration, who may in the case of urgency seek recommendation for the patient from the practitioner.

7. Discussion:

There are challenges to such a model. Although suggestion is that the GP be “gate-keeper”, holder of overall responsibility [12], there may be lack of synergy between disciplines, or competition amongst practitioners. A homeopathic practitioner may experience lack of trust in his discipline and judgment by fellow team-members because of criticism of, or concerns over the evidence base of the efficacy of the discipline. In order to retain this multi-disciplinary model feasible, there is the requirement for interdisciplinary tolerance and good-will.

8. Conclusion:

The therapies of CAM are increasingly valued by patients and practitioners of differing disciplines.  Multi-disciplinary systems are in demand and workable models can provide a service that is beneficial to the patient.

The highest aim of health professionals is to relief human suffering. As no one discipline can claim to be all-ailment encompassing and healing, the multi-disciplinary approach is a construct that aims at providing the best possible service to a patient [13]. Homeopathy is suited to be a rigid part of multi-disciplinary practice.

Acknowledgements:

I should like to express my gratitude for the assistance I have received in the sourcing and collating of information for the conduction of this exercise. Many thanks go to Maureen McElroy and Rehana Banu Issat, for sharing.

References:

[1] Reason, P., Chase, H. D.; Desser, A.; Melhuish, C.; Morrison, S.; Peters, D.; Wallstein, D.; Webber, V.; and Pietroni, P. (1992) Toward a clinical framework for collaboration between general and complementary practitioners [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://people.bath.ac.uk/mnspwr/Papers/RSMCLIN.htm

[2] Adams, J. (2003) The positive gains of integration: a qualitative study of GPs’ perceptions of their complementary practice [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=527436

[3] Ward, A. (1996) Report on a practice-based homeopathy project                                 Analysis of effectiveness and cost of homeopathic treatment within a GP practice [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://www.homoeopathyuk.org/file/My_research_page.html

[4] Smallwood, C. and FreshMinds (2005) The role of complementary and alternative medicine in the NHS: an investigation into the potential contribution of mainstream complementary therapies to healthcare in the UK [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://www.library.nhs.uk/HEALTHMANAGEMENT/ViewResource.aspx?resID=105315

[5] Treuherz, F. (1999) Homeopathy in general practice. A descriptive report of work with 500 consecutive patients between 1993 -1998 Northampton: SOH

[6] SOH (2004) Code of Ethics [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-the-society/code-of-ethics.aspx

[7] Dennison, J., Eisen, S., Towers, M., & Clark, C. (2006) An effective electronic surgical referral system [online] last accessed 19.02.10 at URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963768/pdf/rcse8806-554.pdf

[8] NHS (2010) Electronic Referrals [online] last accessed 19.02.10 at URL http://www.wales.nhs.uk/IHC/page.cfm?pid=33626&orgid=770

[9] GMC (2009) Good medical practice: Working with colleagues [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/working_with_colleagues.asp

[10] Scrivener, R.; Morrell, C.; Baker, R.; Redsell, S.; Shaw, E.; Stevenson, K.; Pink, D.; and Bromwich, N. (2002) Principles for best practice in clinical audit [online]last accessed 24.02.10 at URL http://www.nice.org.uk/media/796/23/BestPracticeClinicalAudit.pdf

[11] Russo, H (2006) Shining lights: A practical guide for integrating health care [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://www.fih.org.uk

[12] Pietroni, P. (1992) Beyond the boundaries: Relationship between general practice and complementary medicine [online] last accessed 24.02.10 at URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1883275/

[13] Cohen, M. (2004) CAM practitioners and “regular” doctors: is integration possible? [online] last accessed 24.02.2010 at URL http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/180_12_210604/coh10215_fm.pdf

The Dilemma with Ethics

01 Sunday Apr 2012

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in Ethics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Autonomy, Beneficence, CAM, Ethics, Healthcare, homeopathy, Justice, Non-maleficence

Within the health care profession, as practitioners, we find ourselves in a sector that is subject to the most intensive and sensitive regulation. We are entrusted with the highest good of all, the life of human beings. This confidence in our credentials requires sincere monitoring, directing, and legislative and ethical boundaries. We are dealing with a patients´ most vulnerable existence, illness, a state when his vitality is weakened by imbalance.  Whether practicing in general medicine or complementary and alternative fields, we are all dealing with this highest good and have to prove our worthiness and are required to abide to the rules that assure the patients security.

Samuel Hahnemann laid out the initial rules of professional practice in the field of homeopathy, in his first aphorisms of his Organon [1]. Aphorism 1 states that it is a practitioners´ highest good and only profession to retrieve the sick man from illness and render healthy again. Aphorism 2 then tells us that the highest ideal of curing is to do it quickly, gentle and such that the healing is of permanence. We are to remove and abolish in entirety the disease and are to do this most rapidly, reliably and following precise, comprehensive motives. These words can well be translated into our times and are contingent to many professional codes of the health practices, ever since first pledged in the oath of Hippocrates [2]; and today manifest in the declaration of Geneva [3]. These phrases constitute the ethical principle of beneficence.

Beneficence, whether to the allopath or the homeopath, in practice, means the same thing; that it is our duty to our patients, to act in their best interest and to do good [4]. But at the same time of laying out an ethical boundary for the practitioner, it is here perceivable that these boundaries are liable to flexibility. Because, with Beneficence, what is good for the patient is left to be declared by whom? Is the practitioner competent enough to explain to the patient all aspects of a therapy such that he, the patient can make the decision for or against a therapy himself? Is the autonomy, the ability of the patient to actively make his own decisions [5], at all times sustained with the patient? What about non-maleficience, that requires us to do no harm to our patients [4]? With vaccinations, for example, patients are receiving injections of a harmful nature. Is the general practitioner committing non-maleficience?

For a general practitioner abiding to the code of ethics seems slightly more complicated than it is for the homeopath. What if the general practitioner has to treat a patient that is brought into his care unconsciously [6]; who decides on beneficence and where does that leave autonomy? An overall rule that needs to be followed is that whatever a practitioner decides on, the benefits of a treatment have to outweigh the risks.

In homeopathic practice, to fully explain to the patient all aspects of homeopathy and all effects that a remedy reaction may bring forth would exceed the time available for a consultation. So are we practicing unethically? We cannot possibly provide all information that there is. But we are required to provide enough information for our patient to understand and be able to make an autonomous decision [7].This decision the patient then makes has to be respected, even if it should, to our beliefs, be inappropriate to the patients´ positive health development. We are complying with the principle of autonomy. But it is here that beneficence and autonomy may clash. Especially in general medicine, this clash is apparent, so for example where patients need, yet refuse to have a blood transfusion because their religious believes prohibit them to [8]. In order to protect the practitioner it is therefore, important to have the patient sign a consent form where he declares his abstinence from treatment or therapy. Likewise if the patient wishes to proceed with a treatment, in order to protect the practitioner, the former should have to sign a form of contract where he declares his approval and understanding of the procedure and the possible consequences [5].

Where such “contracts”, or consent forms, have not been signed, from a legislative aspect, a practitioner may be exposed to claims of civil liability. This may also occur where tort of negligence of the practitioner towards the patient is claimed. But to be proven guilty of negligence the principles of negligence must have been violated. 1. To owe a duty of care, 2. To breach that duty,3. This breach of duty must have caused the damage complained of [9].

What about ethical justice? Are we able to provide our services to everybody on equal terms [5]? The diverse health systems of many countries have shown us that this is impossible. We already have medical systems today that at the most provide essential medicinal services rather than fulfil the necessary requirements [10]. The discrepancy in the health care system lies in deep confrontation to the ethical principle of justice which states that all patients have to be treated equally and have to be given access to the same resources [5]. Therapies of complementary and alternative practice though are not integrated into the health care systems and have to be disbursed privately by the patient and are therefore not obtainable for every patient. From this point of view justice is not met.

The issue of ethics is not a simple one and it is evident that stretchable boundaries are necessary. To assure that these boundaries are maintained, a health care professional is a member of a board or society monitoring professional practice within the practitioners´ field of competence. Ethics is the code of behavior that guides our actions in our professional environment [11]. To abide by these rules is essential for any practitioner in the health care sector. What is important to remember is that at all times the benefit has to outweigh the risk.

So can we as homeopaths, meet the ethical demands that our professional body codified for us, fully and at all times? We have to attempt to fully comply, but have to accept and be aware of the fact that the ethical principles overlap and their restrictive boundaries are slightly flexible.

[Thanks to Jean Duckworth, University of Central Lancashire, for assistance with this assignment]

References:

[1] Hahnemann, S., 1974. Organon der Heilkunst. 2te Auflage. Heidelberg: Karl F. Haug Verlag.

[2] Bauer, A., Anon. Der Hippocratische Eid [online] last accessed 24 January 2009 at URL http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de

[3] Jones, D., 2006. The Hippocratic Oath II [online] last accessed 09 February 2009 at URL http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk

[4] Pantilat, S., 2008. Beneficence vs. Nonmaleficence [online] last accessed 05 February 2009 at URL http://missinglink.ucsf.edu

[5] Swagerty, D. Anon. Ethics: Terms [online] last accessed 10 February 2009 at URL http://classes.kumc.edu

[6] Davenport, J. 1997. Ethical principles in clinical practice [online] last accessed 05 February 2009 at URL http://xnet.kp.org

[7] Ernst, E., Cohen, M., and Stone, J., 2003. Ethical problems arising in evidence based complementary and alternative medicine [online] last accessed 19 January 2009 at URL http://jme.bmj.com

[8] Gardiner, P., 2003. A virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine [online] last accessed 07 February 2009 at URL http://jme.bmj.com

[9] Duhaime, L., 2006. Negligence an Introduction [online] last accessed 07 February 2009 at URL http://www.duhaime.org

[10] Schulz-Ehring, F., Weber, C., 2008. Zwei-Klassen-Medizin [online] last accessed 24 January 2009 at URL http://www.pkv.de

[11] Fieser, J., 2006. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online] last accessed 10 February 2009 at URL http://www.iep.utm.edu


The challenges of IBS – A critical analysis of research in CAM and a critical examination of methodological modifications suitable for future investigations on IBS and for research in CAM in general

13 Sunday Nov 2011

Posted by Uta Mittelstadt in Research

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

alternative medicine, CAM, complementary medicine, homeopathic medicine, homeopathic treatment, homeopathy, IBS, irritable bowel syndrome, irritable colon, research


Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome, IBS, is a diagnosis that is difficult to understand and difficult to treat [8]; [30]. Its definition is vague: IBS is a syndrome that incorporates symptoms of several functional gastro-intestinal disorders [8] that should have been experienced by patients´ for at least 3 months [3]. As a description, this is non-inclusive of the vast array of symptoms that have been identified as characteristic of IBS [16]; [21]; [24] [See Table 2]. Further complication arises with the fact that “the nature of symptoms [also] can vary amongst patients with IBS and within the same patient over time” [8] (p.1697).

Doctors and therapists therefore, find themselves confronted with variable aspects that make it difficult to diagnose the syndrome and complicate the process of identifying a curative treatment [8]. A precise etiology of IBS does not exist [4]; [24]; [26]; [30] and the diagnosis of IBS is largely achieved by exclusion of other more serious ailments [3]; [8]; [23]. IBS is associated with numerous burdens for the patient, ranging from physical and emotional impact to increased medical costs and decreased quality of life [8]; [13] [20].

In conventional medicine the treatment of IBS is “notoriously unsatisfactory”, [18]; [1] no curative agent is known [4]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [1] and no conventional treatment has educed efficacy in research [8]; [24]; [23]. As a consequence, “therapy for IBS is palliative and supportive, targeting specific symptoms” [18] (p. 2650) only.

Management of symptoms is in CAM, likewise, the main focus in the quest for improvement. CAM too, has to date not produced an effective treatment for the expressions of IBS [4]; [15], albeit offering aspects of treatment such as patient centeredness and individualisation that have been identified as prospective influential components of patient improvement and compliance [12]; [22].

The initial aim of this essay had been to identify evidence of efficacy of homeopathy for IBS. Unfortunately, respective studies and trials were scarce and available as abstracts only, such that the field of investigation had to be broadened to allow a critically examination of research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Yet, focus had to be diverted again, due to the lack of evidence of efficacy of CAM treatments. Consequently this essay seeks to critically analyse research in CAM using the example of IBS. The aim is to identify improvements to research models employed for CAM that acknowledge the philosophical principles underlying holistic, complementary health care, whilst meeting the demand for evidence based proof of efficacy that is fundamental to research in conventional medicine. It is sought to extrapolate from these findings implications for future investigations into the efficacy of homeopathy, for IBS and in general.

Identification of existing literature on IBS

Studies, trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this critical analysis. A search for relevant publications was performed on several databases namely, on Sciencedirect, Ebscohost, Pubmed, the Archives of Internal Medicine, the National Institute of Mental Health, Sage publications, the British Medical Journal and the Cochrane collaboration, as well as Google and Google-scholar. The search was performed in the English, German and French language. The initial search terms were: Irritable bowel, irritable bowel syndrome, IBS, complementary and alternative medicine, CAM, alternative therapies, and respective terminology in French and German. These terms were used separately or in differing conjunctions.

Most studies and publications were found via Science-direct, Wiley Online Library, and BMJ. Results in German and French were mainly pay on demand and were only available as abstracts, and were therefore excluded.

The search for articles on research methodology in general, in conventional medicine, CAM and homeopathy was conducted principally via Sciencedirect and Ebscohost. Keywords were: Study design, qualitative research method, methodology of trials, challenges to RCT, random controlled trial, research in CAM, research in homeopathy, whole system research.

Via the references of studies and reviews, the selection of the search-option `similar articles´ on Sciencedirect, and citations of articles, further publications and information were obtained. The selection of articles was restricted to the years 1978 until 2011. The final update of references for this essay was in April 2011.

With respect to the publications included in this analysis, what was considered as CAM were disciplines conform with Chang and Lu´s [4] definition of CAM, as:  “medical practices that are not currently considered a part of conventional medicine” (p.295).

Critical examination of selected studies on IBS

Table 1 – Selected Studies

What becomes evident from the analysis of sourced publications is that there exists a fundamental problem with research on IBS. The absence of consensus of definition of what irritable bowel syndrome precisely describes, flaws trials and studies from the very beginning.

Bommelaer et al. [2] have clearly demonstrated this with the outcomes of their study. Whether IBS is identified by use of the Manning, or evaluated by the ROME I, II or III criteria has impact on the prevalence measure of IBS (See table 2 for criteria describing IBS). Cabré [3] and Pavan et al. [19] also voice this criticism.

Bommelaer et al. [2] further point out that the inclusion of a factor descriptive of “frequency and duration of disorder is highly discriminating” (p.559), as prevalence is influenced by such data and consequently cannot be judged as precise. Biased outcome may also result if participants of the trial or study are expressing symptomatology of IBS at different stages [7]; [9]. Furthermore, in multi-national trials, prevalence, as is noted by Quigley et al. [20] may be flawed due to differing patient and practitioner awareness of the syndrome from one country to another.

Table 2 – Criteria defining IBS

Complementing the above, Whitehead [30] points out in his review of studies on the evidence of efficacy of hypnosis for IBS, what is critical for all studies, equally, if not more so for meta-analyses and systematic reviews in CAM, on IBS and in general. When comparing the efficacy of numerous studies, it “requires basic comparability in outcome measures” (p.17). This is not only of relevance concerning the definition of IBS, but likewise when investigating other measures, such as quality of life or emotional impact, especially when comparing studies from different disciplines.

The meta-analysis of Dorn et al. [6] abstracted the diagnostic criteria in their analysis. Their analysis was indifferent of the bias underlying the employment of differing definitions of IBS, and therefore of prevalence, as their focus was on “placebo response in CAM trials of IBS” (p.630). For identification of their outcome, the authors used 10 trials on herbal remedies, 1 on the use of melatonin and 1 on psychotherapy. Their results can hardly be generalized for all of CAM, and due to the superiority in number of studies on herbal therapy are at best representative of an evaluation in herbal treatment. Further, as the authors themselves point out, the inclusion of a study from the field of psychotherapy is critical, as this treatment approach is one considered to belong into the realms of conventional medicine.

Dorn et al. [6] contradict themselves in discussion and conclusion, when they point out in one that some consideration has to be given the nature of CAM treatments, with a possibly enhanced placebo response in CAM due to the therapeutic relationship, yet exclaim in the other that in CAM and conventional medicine placebo response rates are similar and therefore “independent of the type of therapy used” (p.634). Dorn et al. [6] take the evidence for these statements from different sources, showing clearly that research in this field is still inconclusive. This raises the question whether it is appropriate, in investigations into CAM, to employ research models that fall short of identifying and considering non-specific, but influential factors such as the therapeutic relationship in a treatment. RCTs deliver only one answer to a question and are non-multi-factorial in design [28] and therefore seem insufficient for investigations into CAM.

Shi et al. [21] have restricted focus, in their review, on the “effectiveness and safety of herbal medicine” (p.454) for IBS. They too have noted that prevalence differs depending on criteria employed and mention yet another evaluation criteria employed in China. They have evaluated RCT´s only, but have not insisted on blinding of the trials and studies selected. Shi et al. [21] concluded that 82% of studies reviewed were of poor methodological quality and consequently herbal treatment should “not be reliably recommended” (p.461). They further criticize that duration of study and respective treatment and follow-up were too short in most studies to be able to identify efficacy of herbal treatment. They make the point that in practice too, with short treatment duration, “it is hard to reach the therapeutic goal in IBS” (p.460). Although they did not focus on the placebo-response rate Shi et al. [21] further remind of the therapeutic relationship as possible causative factor of a high rate.

The importance of a longer duration of a study is also an aspect implied from the McFarland and Dublin [18] meta-analysis on the use of probiotics for IBS.  They too point out that current research suffers many methodological flaws and future trials should be designed for longer duration, and should be conducted with more rigor.

Hussain and Quigley [11] stress that in CAM few studies have been subject to RCT´s, and if investigated employing the `gold standard´ of conventional scientific research, the quality of trials has been low. They point out that in as many as 5000 trials, as little as 10% were actually properly blinded and randomized. They conclude that studies in CAM are complicated by higher placebo response rates and consequently little progress has been made in CAM research in general and for IBS.

An RCT, performed on the efficacy of acupuncture on IBS, by Kaptchuk et al. [12] demonstrates the difficulty in association to blinding in some treatment approaches of CAM. Kaptchuk et al. [12] have blinded their trial by using sham acupuncture and although Kaptchuk et al. [12] claim that their blinding has been successful, Mason et al. [17] state that such blinding in CAM “should be treated with caution” (p.833). They point out that the patient experience of a sham treatment does differ to that in regular practice.

In conclusion to their study Kaptchuk et al. [12] emphasize “that an enhanced relationship with a practitioner, together with the placebo treatment” studied in one of their 3 groups, provided “the most robust effect” (p.6). The therapeutic relationship therefore could be rated as the strongest of non-specific effects of the study. Its dominance is markedly and proves of clinical significance in the management of IBS. Kaptchuk et al. [12] in fact stress person-centred modalities as elemental to the patient-practitioner interaction, and consequently acknowledge these as significant to the clinical outcome, although they recommend further research to verify this. They further point out that they suspected in a trial on IBS, with a markedly subjective symptomatology, to be able to best demonstrate the relevance of such non-specific effects as the therapeutic relationship. They acknowledge as a limit to their trial, that it could not be identified whether the placebo outcomes originated from true pathological improvement or were due to a mere shift in patient focus away from their symptoms of IBS, and further admit that they experienced difficulty separating observation and assessment effects.

None of the above publications provided generalisable, conclusive evidence of efficacy of the therapeutic approaches for the treatment of IBS.

The potential contribution of other research designs on understanding IBS

What can be extrapolated from the above its that, beyond consensus in criteria used to identify IBS, it is essential, that in order to provide evidence for the efficacy of CAM for IBS, research models are adopted that are not ignorant of non-specific effects, and in fact identify such influential factors.  The gold-standard RCT cannot provide this. The above has shown that the possibility exists that “the non-specific components of treatment may be vehicles for the delivery of clinical benefits” [29] (p.187). RCTs are designed to investigate into one single quantitative effect [5]; [27], an aspect that entirely ignores the qualitative idiosyncratic approach of CAM [17]; [27]. A research methodology investigating into CAM must meet the demand of high scientific rigor and must be able to merge this with the holistic principles underlying the practices of CAM disciplines [17]; [29].

The identification of a blind-able placebo is another aspect complicating RCT approaches to research in CAM [17]; [27]; as could be extrapolated above in the study by Kaptchuk et al. [12].  Randomization may also be difficult, the patients prepared to participate in this type of trial, may be influenced in their decision by their own preference and belief [17]; [27]; [28].

It has been attempted to modify RCTs to adopt a more qualitative assessment. In what is termed `pragmatic RCT´, it was sought to create a model that investigates the entire system of a discipline within its individualised context [27]. Unfortunately, this format is restrictive and only partially meets the demand for a trial assessing multiple aspects of a holistic treatment approach [27]. Randomization, a blind-able placebo, as mentioned above, and the exclusion of influence of the therapeutic relationship with the practitioner are only marginally achievable [27]. Other variations of RCT´s, such as `preference trials´ [27] and `n-of-1 trials´ [28], have been identified to be likewise restrictive.

The `formal case study´ is a model for investigation that seeks to combine the conventional RCT design with the homeopathic patho-genetic trial, the homeopathic proving [25]. RCTs on homeopathy are flawed as the control with placebo is identifiable at follow-up level and the patient-practitioner relationship may be influential on the outcome [25], as is shown in the above analysis of studies in CAM. The formal case study delivers information on the contextual effects of the researched intervention and is adaptable to other alternative treatment approaches, nonetheless it is also criticised as being inconclusive [25]. A still unmet requirement for the `FCS´, is to master the divergence of the interpretative outcomes established by the different researchers analysing the same data [25].

In opposition to Thompson [25], Weatherley-Jones et al. [29] understand homeopathy as a discipline of CAM that “appears to lend itself well to placebo-controlled trials of efficacy”. They do not acknowledge the identification of the placebo upon progression into follow-up. Nonetheless they consent that the effect of the multiple components belonging to therapeutic interventions of CAM cannot be identified using the RCT, and as such outcomes in homeopathy cannot be generalised [29].

The ANOVA model is a research design that permits identification of two therapeutic aspects, yet Weatherley-Jones et al. [29] have identified its restriction. This model is flawed by the inaptitude of creating a study arm that can provide a group with an individualised treatment, devoid of a consultation [29]. Weatherley-Jones et al. [29] make the suggestion that focus of research on individualised therapies, such as homeopathy, should be diverted to the question of usefulness to health care in general. The relevance of an intervention to patients and practitioners may be valuable in the analysis of effectiveness of a whole system [29]. They suggest pragmatic trials for this purpose, yet these have limits as was noted by Verhoef et al. [27] and described above.

Most investigations have their focus on identification of efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment approach, the principles according to which CAM treatments work are in conventional research neglected [28]. Restoration to health in a holistic CAM treatment is influenced by multiple, individualised factors that are interconnected [5]; [17]; [28] and cannot be separated. Like Weatherley-Jones et al. [29] above, Verhoef et al. [28] postulate the adaptation of research models that take a whole system approach. This form of research must value to equal terms qualitative and quantitative methodologies in order to do justice to both, the nature and the holistic principles of the CAM approach and at the same time the demand for scientific rigor. A mixed-method-research model, therefore, “has most potential to effectively evaluate whole systems of health care” [28] (p.209). Such a model would incorporate patient experience and value attributed to the context within which a treatment is delivered, and would merge this with the evaluation of effectiveness gained through statistical appraisal of RCTs. Not only for disciplines of CAM, such as homeopathy, with its individualised case-taking and prescribing, but indeed also for “complex interventions in conventional health care” [28] (p.211), is a whole system research approach increasingly valuable.

Conclusion

In conventional medicine the striving is for `evidence-based´ approaches to treatment, yet with IBS, according to Thompson et al. [26] it should be stressed to make patient-centred, individualised decisions, an aspect belonging much more into the realms of CAM. The patient-practitioner relationship has been augmented as a factor important to the management of IBS [10]; [11] and research has delivered evidence of the therapeutic relationship as a non-specific effect of RCT´s undertaken in CAM [12]. The quest of finding an effective treatment for IBS requires understanding of patient experiences [1]; [24]. In the disciplines of CAM employing a holistic view of patient condition [22], practicing an idiosyncratic treatment approach [1] promoting a therapeutic relationship [23], and allowing patient empowerment [11]; [14]; [15], have been recognized as influential in a successful treatment of IBS.

Research in CAM needs to be as rigorous as that of conventional medicine, but failure to take into account the impact of the holistic nature of CAM produces, with RCTs, flawed results [17]. Consequentially a new model of research needs to be adapted for investigations into CAM. Future research into CAM should be sensitive to such elements that are increasingly being recognized as influential to patient treatment. Whole system research is an approach aiming to incorporate scientific rigor and qualitative experience [28]. Verhoef et al. [28], state that investigations into such models are currently being undertaken. Therefore, as IBS is considered a disorder that affects patients all their life [1], for the sake of the suffering patients, a consensus on a research model considering implications of whole systems should, preferably, be found soon.

Consequentially, future studies and trials investigating into the efficacy of CAM therapies for IBS could then possibly, with the utility of a modified research methodology, eventually elicit a successful treatment for IBS.

[Thanks to Kate Chatfield, University of Central Lancashire, for the assistance with this assignment.]

© U.M. at Clever Homeopathy

References:

[1] Agrawal, A. & Whorwell, P. (2006) Irritable bowel syndrome: Diagnosis and management [online] British Medical Journal Learning Vol.332, pp.280-283, article from British Medical Journal, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.bmj.com

[2] Bommelaer, G., Poynard, T., Le Pen, C., Gaudin, A., Maurel, F., Priol, G., Amouretti, M., Frexinos, J., Ruszniewski, P. & El Hasnaqui, A. (2004) Prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and variability of diagnostic criteria [online] Gastroenterol Clin Biol Vol.28 pp.554-561, article from Oxford-journals, last accessed 07 April 2011 at URL http://www.e2med.com/gcb

[3] Cabré, E. (2011) Clinical nutrition University: Nutrition in the prevention and management of irritable bowel syndrome, constipation and diverticulosis [online] e-SPEN, the European e-Journal of clinical nutrition and metabolism pp.e1-e11, article from Elsevier, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[4] Chang, F. & Lu, C. (2009) Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome using complementary and alternative medicine [online] Journal of the Chinese medical association Vol.72, No.6, pp.294-300, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 03 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[5] Dannheisser, I. (2009) An Investigation into Whole Systems Research as an Appropriate Methodology for the Advancement in Understanding of Homeopathy as a Complex Therapeutic Intervention [online] Hpathy, article from Hpathy, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://hpathy.com

[6] Dorn, S., Kaptchuk, T., Park, J., Nguyen, L., Canenguez, K., Nam, B., Woods, K., Conboy, L., Stason, W. & Lembo, A. (2007) A meta-analysis of the placebo response in complementary and alternative medicine trials of irritable bowel syndrome [online] Neurogastroenterology and Motility Vol.19, pp.630-637, article from Wiley Online Library, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

[7] Drossmann, D. (1999) Do psychosocial factors define symptom severity and patient status in irritable bowel syndrome? [online] The American journal of medicine Vol.107, No.5A, pp.41s-50s, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[8] Gilkin, R. (2005) The spectrum of irritable bowel syndrome: A clinical review [online] Clinical therapeutics Vol.27, pp.1696-1709, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[9] Hawkey, C. (1999) Irritable bowel syndrome clinical trial design: Future needs [online] The American journal of medicine Vol.107, No.5A, pp.98S-102S, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[10] Horst, H v. d., Schellevis, F., Eijk, J. v., & Bleijenberg, G. (1998) Managing patients with irritable bowel syndrome in general practice. How to promote and reinforce self-care activities [online] Patient education and counselling Vol.35, pp.149-156, article from Elsevier, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[11] Hussain, Z. & Quigley, M. (2006) Systematic review: Complementary and alternative medicine in irritable bowel syndrome [online] Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Vol.23, pp.465-471, article from Wiley Online Library, last accessed 03 February 2011 at URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

[12] Kaptchuk, T., Kelley, J., Conboy, L., Davis, R., Kerr, C., Jacobson, E., Kirsch, I., Schyner, R., Nam, B., Nguyen, L., Park, M., Rivers, A., McManus, C., Kokkotou, E., Drossmann, D., Goldman, P. &  Lembo, A. (2008) Components of placebo effect: Randomized controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome [online] British Medical Journal n.p. article from British Medical Journal, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.bmj.com

[13] Kearney, D. & Brown-Chang, J. (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine for IBS in adults: mind-body interventions [online] Nature reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology Vol.5, No.11, pp.624-636, article from Nature, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.nature.com/clinicalpractice/gasthep

[14] Kennedy, A., Robinson, A. & Rogers, A. (2002) Incorporating patients´ views and experiences of life with IBS in the development of an evidence based self-help guidebook [online] Patient education and counselling Vol.50, pp.303-310, article from Elsevier, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[15] Lewith, G. (1995) Irritable bowel syndrome: The complementary approaches considered [online] Complementary therapies in medicine Vol.3, pp.220-223, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 03 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[16] Manning, A., Thompson, W., Heaton, K. & Morris, A. (1978) Towards positive diagnosis of the irritable bowel [online] British Medical Journal Vol.2, pp.653-654, article from British Medical Journal, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.bmj.com

[17] Mason, S., Tovey, P. & Long, A. (2002) Evaluating complementary medicine: Methodological challenges of randomized controlled trials [online] British medical journal Vol.325, pp.832-834, article from Ebscohost, last accessed 06 April 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[18] McFarland, L. & Dublin, S. (2008) Meta-analysis of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome [online] World Journal of Gastroenterology Vol.14, No.17, pp.2650-2661,     article from National Centre for Biotechnology Information, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[19] Pavan, M., Mehta, G. & Thillainayagam, A. (2008) The clinical evaluation of abdominal pain in adults [online] Medicine Vol.37, No.1, pp.11-16, article from Elsevier, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[20] Quigley, E., Bytzer, P., Jones, R. & Mearin, F. (2006) Irritable bowel syndrome: The burden and unmet needs in Europe [online] Digestive and Liver disease Vol.38, pp.717-723, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[21] Shi, J., Tong, Y., Shen, J. & Li, H. (2008) effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review [online] World Journal of Gastroenterology Vol.14, No.3, pp.454-462, article from National Centre for Biotechnology Information, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[22] Smart, H., Mayberry, J. & Atkinson, M. (1986) Alternative medicine consultations and remedies in patients with the irritable bowel syndrome [online] Gut Vol.27,pp.826-828, article from British Medical Journal, last accessed 03 February 2011 at URL http://www.gut.bmj.com

[23] Spanier, J., Howden, C. & Jones, M. (2003) A systematic review of alternative therapies in the irritable bowel syndrome [online] Archives of Internal Medicine Vol.163, pp.265-274, article from Archives of Internal Medicine, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://archinte.ama-assn.org/

[24] Stenner, P., Dancey, C. & Watts, S. (2000) The understanding of their illness amongst people with irritable bowel syndrome: a Q methodological study [online] Social Science and Medicine Vol.51, pp.439-452, article from Elsevier, last accessed 14 February 2011 at URL http://www.elsevier.com

[25] Thompson, T. (2004) Can the caged bird sing? Reflections on the application of qualitative research methods to case study design in homeopathic medicine [online] BMC Medical Research Methodology Vol.4, No.4, n.p., article from BioMed Central, last accessed 06 April 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[26] Thompson, G., Hungin, A., Neri, M., Holtmann, G., Sofos, S., Delvaux, M. & Caballero-Plasencia, A. (2001) The management of irritable bowel syndrome: a European, primary and secondary care collaboration [online] European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology Vol.13, pp.933-939, article from Ovid, last accessed 03 February 2011 at URL http://ovidsp.uk.ovid.com

[27] Verhoef, M., Casebeer, A. & Hilsden, R. (2002) Assessing efficacy of complementary medicine: Adding qualitative research methods to the “gold standard” [online] The journal of alternative and complementary medicine Vol.8, No.3, pp.275-281, article from Mary Ann Liebert, last accessed 06 April 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[28] Verhoef, M., Lewith, G., Ritenbaugh, C., Boon, H., Fleishman, S. & Leis, A. (2005) Complementary and alternative medicine whole systems research: Beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT [online] Complementary Therapies in Medicine Vol.13, pp.206-212, article from Elsevier, last accessed 06 April 2011 at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[29] Weatherley-Jones, E., Thompson, E. & Thomas, K. (2004) The placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: Observations from research experience of individualized homeopathic treatment [online] Homeopathy Vol.93, pp.186-189, article from Sciencedirect, last accessed 06 April 2011at URL http://www.sciencedirect.com

[30] Whitehead, W. (2005) Hypnosis for irritable bowel syndrome: The empirical evidence of therapeutic effects [online] International Journal of clinical and experimental hypnosis Vol.54, No.1, pp.7-20, article from Ebscohost, last accessed 04 February 2011 at URL http://web.ebscohost.com

© U.M. at Clever Homeopathy

A homeopathy specialist clinic for PTSD & CPTSD

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Homeopathy World Community (HWC)

Clever Homeopathy Tweets on Twitter

My Tweets

Clever Homeopathy on FB

Clever Homeopathy on FB

Selected articles: Clever H. - the Mag!

Editorial – Summer 2022

Editorial – Summer 2022

Dear Reader, I was recently shown an image depicting an elderly couple, sitting on a bench in front of their wooden house. She had a scarf wrapped around her shoulders. He was wearing a cap. Below the image was a text stating something of the like: Remember waking up at the grandparents home, being a […]

Following the human needs instead of the materia medica symptoms

Following the human needs instead of the materia medica symptoms

To my detriment I was singled out for being too different and subsequently a number of psychiatric admissions followed 10 years ago. This helped me to better understand the needs of the most vulnerable and socially excluded. I found out the hard way that psychiatry medicalises our social problems and has a place in our […]

HOMEOPATHY – BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER PREGNANCY

HOMEOPATHY – BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER PREGNANCY

A 30 years woman from Qatar consulted for Secondary Infertility with AMH <0.01 on 10 May 2018. In her first pregnancy, abortion induced in the 3rd month of gestation as fetus died in uterus (IUD). During her second pregnancy, she had spontaneous miscarriage in the second month. The patient has a fear that she will […]

Selected Posts from SPORTSHOM: SPORTSHOM

‘Tennis-elbow’ – a repetitive strain injury

‘Tennis-elbow’ – a repetitive strain injury

The Tennis Elbow refers to an overuse injury, a repetitive straining of the muscles that attach to the bones of the arm at height of the elbow. Biologically this injury is termed lateral epicondylitis. The so called Golfer´s Elbow, is similar to the Tennis Elbow, however affects the inner area of the elbow joint, while […]

Contusion – a common sports-injury

Contusion – a common sports-injury

(article 1st published at ‘Clever Homeopathy‘)     One of the injuries most frequently acquired during sports is a contusion, so to speak bruising to the muscular tissue. While most such bruising is of little concern and will quickly resolve on by itself, more severe contusion that involves deeper lying tissue, may be a complication […]

Concussion – a potential sports-injury

Concussion – a potential sports-injury

    Concussion can occur in the process of many physical activities, whether they are conducted for leisure or for a wage, whether an amateur or a pro. A concussion is a traumatic injury to the brain caused by a sudden acceleration, rotation or shaking of the head. This causes a forward and backward motion […]

Copyright

Creative Commons License
All Content on Clever Homeopathy Blog by Uta Mittelstadt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

© Uta Mittelstadt and Clever Homeopathy, 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Uta Mittelstadt and Clever Homeopathy with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Recent Posts

  • Stressed out by the weather?
  • ‘Forest Fires’ Emergency Help
  • CareClin – Homeopathy because we care!
  • Homeopathy to alleviate the symptoms of Sleep Apnea?
  • Some homeopathic remedies that grind their teeth.

Categories

Archives

Admin

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Pages

  • Disclaimer
  • Clever Homeopathy
  • Homeopathy
  • About Me
  • Contact
  • Publications

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Author

  • Uta Mittelstadt

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Clever Homeopathy
    • Join 4,129 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Clever Homeopathy
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...