Exploring General Practitioners’ attitudes to homeopathy in Dumfries and Galloway

E Hamilton

doi:10.1016/j.homp.2003.06.001

Homeopathy, Table of Contents

Homeopathy 2003; 92(04): 190-194
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2003.06.001

Original Paper

Exploring General Practitioners’ attitudes to homeopathy in Dumfries and Galloway

Authors

E Hamilton

Abstract

This comparative quantitative study explored General Practitioners’ (GPs) attitudes to homeopathy in Dumfries and Galloway, a predominantly rural area in South West Scotland where there is a local British Homeopathic Association Funded Homeopathic Clinic. It aimed to determine whether there was an association between expressed attitudes to homeopathy and a number of variables. Issues arising from the House of Lords Report on CAM were also explored. A self-administered questionnaire was addressed to all 135 GPs within Dumfries and Galloway. Descriptive statistics were used in the data analysis.

The response rate was 75%. The NHS GP clinic accounted for 47% of total referrals for homeopathy. A total of 86.1% of GPs within Dumfries and Galloway were in favour of a local NHS Homeopathic Specialist Clinic. Forms of evidence most influential to GPs regarding homeopathy were: randomised controlled trials; audit data on patient outcomes; safety and patient satisfaction.

Keywords

homeopathy - CAM - Scotland - General Practitioners - attitudes - integration - evidence-based medicine - quantitative

Full Text

References

References
1 Reilly D. The Evidence Profile for Homeopathy—Creating the Verification Mosaic. Glasgow: Glasgow Academic Departments of Homeopathy, 1998, pp 1–14.
2 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 6th Report. London: The Stationery Office, 2000.
3 Wyllie M, Hannaford P. Attitudes to complementary therapies and referral for homeopathic treatment. A Survey of General Practitioners in Lothian, Scotland: Br Hom J 1998; 87: 13–16.
4 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Opportunities for Homeopathy within the New NHS. London, 2000, p 9.
5 White AR, Resch KL, Ernst E. A survey of complementary practitioners fees practice and attitudes to working within the National Health Service. Complement Ther Med 1997; 5: 210–214.
6 Perry R, Dowrick C. Homeopathy and general practice: an urban perspective. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 13–16.
7 Perkin M, Pearcy R, Fraser J. A comparison of the attitudes shown by general practitioners, hospital doctors and medical students towards alternative medicine. J R Soc Med 1994; 87: 523–525.
8 Franklin D. Medical practitioners attitudes to complementary medicine. Complement Med Res 1992; 6: 69–71.
9 Hunter A. Attitudes to complementary medicine. A survey of General Practitioners and medical students in the Tayside Area. Commun Br Hom Res Group 1988; 17: 34–51.
10 Thomas K, Fitter M. Possible research strategies for evaluating CAM interventions. In: Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H (eds). Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies. Principles, Problems and Solutions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002, Chap 4, p 72.
11 Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC. Randomized controlled trial of homeopathy versus placebo on perennial allergic rhinitis with an overview of four trial series. Br Med J 2000; 321: 471–476.
12 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC. Is Evidence for homeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344: 1601–1606.
13 Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathic potency, with pollen in hay fever as model. Lancet 1986; 2: 881–886.
14 Reilly DT, Taylor MA. Potent placebo or potency? A proposed study model with initial findings using homeopathically prepared pollens in hay fever. Br Hom J 1985; 74: 65–75.
15 Linde K, Melchart D. Randomised controlled trials of individualised homeopathy: a state-of –the-art review. J Alternat Complement Med 1998; 4: 371–388.
16 White A, Ernst E. The case for uncontrolled clinical trials: a starting point for the evidence base for CAM. Complement Ther Med 2001; 9: 111–115.
17 Dean ME. More trials, fewer placebos, please. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 191–194.
18 Whitmarsh T. More lessons from migraine. Editorial. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 1–2.
19 Westland M, Grimshaw J, Maitland J, Campbell M, Ledingham E, Mcleod E. Understanding practice management: a qualitative study in general practice. J Manage Med 1996; 10: 29–37
20 Parahoo K. Nursing Research Principles Process and Issues. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997, Chap 14, pp 338–359.
21 McColl E, Thomas R. The Use and Design of Questionnaires. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000.
22 Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 35: 37–48.
23 The NHS Confederation. Complementary Medicine in the NHS; Managing the Issues, Vol 4. Birmingham: The NHS Confederation, 1997, p 10.
24 Van Haselen R, Fisher P. Attitudes to evidence on complementary medicine: the perspective of British healthcare purchasers. Complement Ther Med 1999; 7: 136–141.
25 Kelner M, Wellman B. Introduction complementary and alternative medicine: challenge and change. In: Kelner M, Wellman B, Pescosolido B, Saks M (eds). Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Challenge and Change. The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000, pp 5–6.
26 Walach H, Jonas W. Homeopathy. In: Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H (eds). Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies. Principles, Problems and Solutions. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002, Chap 14, p 240.