Usefulness of scientific research in Homeopathy

Francisco Eizayaga, Adalberto von Ancken, Adriana Ceballos, Veronica Bergstein, Carolina Aguilar, Marcela Junin, Bruna Nambu, L. Bonamin
{"title":"Usefulness of scientific research in Homeopathy","authors":"Francisco Eizayaga, Adalberto von Ancken, Adriana Ceballos, Veronica Bergstein, Carolina Aguilar, Marcela Junin, Bruna Nambu, L. Bonamin","doi":"10.51910/ijhdr.v22i2.1348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Homeopathy is being questioned mostly in developed countries, despite the growing body of basic and clinical research with positive results. Even though many meta-analyses show positive findings, there is an urge for large clinical studies to improve the perception that there is an effect. To test the awareness of homeopaths in the research needs, a survey was developed asking about usefulness, and everyday use of research findings. Methods: The respondents were identified by the degree of academic study, age, experience, kind of practice, region of practice, and scientific background. To understand the predominant thoughts, questions were asked to define whether Homeopathy should be considered and studied as science if the homeopath regularly reads scientific papers, and of what kind. Also, the definition of which kind of literature contributes the most to ameliorating the quality of medical attention, the usefulness of basic and clinical research, the source of the research budget, and the priorities for future research. The forms were created in Spanish and Portuguese, and distributed by email, mostly in South America during July and part of August 2023. Results: A total of 463 responses were analyzed. More than 90% of the respondents were practicing homeopaths and 209 were MDs, 64% participated in a scientific study in the past. When asked about developing homeopathy, 50% preferred clinical research, 19% meta-analysis, 11% basic research, 11% HPT and 6% clinical verification.  Funding should be provided by public institutions, Universities, and pharmaceutical companies. When asked about prescribing 76% relied on experience transmitted by masters, 66% on their own experience, and 48% on clinical research. Clinical research was found useful in 88% of the sample. There was no clear response when asked about sources for improving clinical practice. Conclusion: Homeopaths are informed about scientific research but have no clear perception of how it may improve clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":106057,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of High Dilution Research - ISSN 1982-6206","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of High Dilution Research - ISSN 1982-6206","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51910/ijhdr.v22i2.1348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Homeopathy is being questioned mostly in developed countries, despite the growing body of basic and clinical research with positive results. Even though many meta-analyses show positive findings, there is an urge for large clinical studies to improve the perception that there is an effect. To test the awareness of homeopaths in the research needs, a survey was developed asking about usefulness, and everyday use of research findings. Methods: The respondents were identified by the degree of academic study, age, experience, kind of practice, region of practice, and scientific background. To understand the predominant thoughts, questions were asked to define whether Homeopathy should be considered and studied as science if the homeopath regularly reads scientific papers, and of what kind. Also, the definition of which kind of literature contributes the most to ameliorating the quality of medical attention, the usefulness of basic and clinical research, the source of the research budget, and the priorities for future research. The forms were created in Spanish and Portuguese, and distributed by email, mostly in South America during July and part of August 2023. Results: A total of 463 responses were analyzed. More than 90% of the respondents were practicing homeopaths and 209 were MDs, 64% participated in a scientific study in the past. When asked about developing homeopathy, 50% preferred clinical research, 19% meta-analysis, 11% basic research, 11% HPT and 6% clinical verification.  Funding should be provided by public institutions, Universities, and pharmaceutical companies. When asked about prescribing 76% relied on experience transmitted by masters, 66% on their own experience, and 48% on clinical research. Clinical research was found useful in 88% of the sample. There was no clear response when asked about sources for improving clinical practice. Conclusion: Homeopaths are informed about scientific research but have no clear perception of how it may improve clinical practice.
科学研究在顺势疗法中的作用
导言: 顺势疗法主要在发达国家受到质疑,尽管越来越多的基础和临床研究取得了积极成果。尽管许多荟萃分析显示了积极的研究结果,但人们仍希望开展大型临床研究,以提高人们对顺势疗法效果的认识。为了测试顺势疗法者对研究需求的认识,我们开展了一项调查,询问研究结果的有用性和日常使用情况。 调查方法 根据学历、年龄、经验、执业种类、执业地区和科学背景确定受访者。为了解受访者的主要想法,我们提出了一些问题,以确定顺势疗法是否应被视为科学并作为科学进行研究,如果顺势疗法医师经常阅读科学论文,以及阅读何种科学论文。此外,还界定了哪类文献最有助于改善医疗质量、基础和临床研究的效用、研究预算的来源以及未来研究的优先事项。表格以西班牙语和葡萄牙语制作,并通过电子邮件发送,主要于 2023 年 7 月和 8 月的部分时间在南美洲分发。 结果: 共分析了 463 份回复。超过 90% 的受访者是执业顺势疗法医师,209 人是医学博士,64% 的受访者曾参与过科学研究。当被问及顺势疗法的发展时,50% 的人倾向于临床研究,19% 的人倾向于荟萃分析,11% 的人倾向于基础研究,11% 的人倾向于 HPT,6% 的人倾向于临床验证。 资金应由公共机构、大学和制药公司提供。当被问及处方问题时,76%的人依赖于大师传授的经验,66%的人依赖于自己的经验,48%的人依赖于临床研究。88%的样本认为临床研究有用。当被问及改进临床实践的来源时,没有明确的回答。 结论 顺势疗法医师了解科学研究,但对科学研究如何改善临床实践没有明确的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信