Homeopathy 2018; 107(S 01): 55-78
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633325
Poster Abstracts
The Faculty of Homeopathy

Measurement Is the Key to Knowledge: Registration in Homeopathic Practice

Christien Klein-Laansma
1  Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen, The Netherlands
Lex Rutten
2  Independent researcher, The Netherlands
Paul Fruijtier
3  AVIG (Doctors Association Integrative Medicine)–department of homeopathy, The Netherlands
Huib Wijtenburg
3  AVIG (Doctors Association Integrative Medicine)–department of homeopathy, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 February 2018 (online)


Background: Peoples’ mean number of years with chronic diseases has increased significantly in the past decades. Observational research has revealed that patients who seek homeopathic treatment often have long-term illnesses. Practice-based registration could inform us about chronicity, co-morbidity, reasons for consulting a homeopath and changes of complaints. Identification of “best homeopathic cases” in a database could improve homeopathic practice.

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of registration in daily homeopathic practice, to evaluate patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and tools for identifying “best homeopathic cases.”

Methods: Starting April 2015, 25 homeopathic doctors registered details of a maximum of 20 patients each, with 6 months follow-up per patient (extended follow-up for “best homeopathic cases”), in an Excel sheet or in the Homeopathic Administration and Registration Program (HARP). Informed consent was obtained from each patient. PROMs were: general health on a 0 to 100 VAS scale and change of main complaint on a 7-point Likert scale. “Best homeopathic cases” were defined by: treatment with one homeopathic medicine only, ≥2 months follow-up, result score +2 to +4 on a 9-point Likert scale by the doctor and changes could be attributed to the homeopathic medicine.

Results: Three hundred and ninety-nine patients were included. 43.1% wanted homeopathic treatment because conventional treatment had been ineffective. In 49.1%, the main complaint had been present for ≥2 years. Most common main diagnosis was “fatigue” (n = 56; 14%). Major improvement in main complaint (score +3) was reported by 22% to 26% at consecutive follow-up visits. Mean general health scores improved (13.1–18.6%). One hundred and ninety-five patients were treated with a single homeopathic medicine. Sixty-six “best homeopathic cases” were identified, 14 with psychological complaints (including sleep) as a main diagnosis, 10 with “fatigue” and 11 with respiratory tract complaints.

Conclusion: Registration of (co-)diagnoses, chronicity, treatments, and outcomes in homeopathic practice, with specific identification of “best homeopathic cases” using the defined criteria, is feasible.

Keywords: Homeopathy, registration, best practice, PROMs, comorbidity, patient motives, chronic complaints