Homeopathy, a major system of care within complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a 200-year-old field that has to date stimulated much debate over the nature of its medicines (remedies), but little research on its diagnostic and therapeutic process as experienced by providers and patients in clinical practice. Homeopaths report that their patients undergo a broader scope and deeper quality of change in multiple dimensions than do allopathic patients. The overarching goal of this R21, 2-year exploratory proposal is to understand successful homeopathic treatment of chronic diseases in the context of previously unsuccessful homeopathic treatment, other CAM interventions, and allopathic care, from both provider and patient perspectives. The three distinct analytic design components, each with its own unique qualitative research methodologies, address:
Specific Aim 1 Develop a grounded theory that explicates the delivery of care process by classical homeopathic providers with differing conventional medical and CAM professional training backgrounds.
Specific Aim 2 Describe the patient's lived experience of homeopathic and other health care.
Specific Aim 3 Evaluate similarities and differences in perceptions of treatment course and outcomes between patients and providers within each homeopathic orientation. Participants will include (a) classical homeopathic providers (selecting a single remedy to address the entire person as a whole system) will allopathic professional training (MD, DU, NP, PA); (b) classical homeopathic providers with CAM professional training (ND, DC, HMA, lay professional homeopaths); and (c) exemplar patients of each provider, i.e., patients with any previously established, chronic allopathic diagnosis who, in the provider's global clinical impression, have exhibited a sustained, """"""""outstanding or extremely successful outcome in their condition"""""""" for at least 1 year follow-up. Prior research and clinical observations suggest that such patients also will have had experiences with unsuccessful homeopathic, other CAM, and allopathic treatments to compare with their currently """"""""successful"""""""" outcomes. For the Grounded Theory component (Aim 1), providers (N=48) will undergo both individual interviews and focus groups. For the Phenomenology component (Aim 2), patients (N=48) will undergo individual interviews. For the Comparative Analysis component (Aim 3), we will evaluate both data sets to develop an explanatory model of successful homeopathic treatment. This project is part of the Pi's long-term interactive homeopathy research program on patient-centered issues and psychophysiological markers of homeopathic remedy effects. Findings from this proposed study should help clarify the proper premises and parameters on which to base future prospective qualitative and quantitative research in homeopathy.
| Bell, Iris R (2005) All evidence is equal, but some evidence is more equal than others: can logic prevail over emotion in the homeopathy debate? J Altern Complement Med 11:763-9 |
