Petter Viksveen

Antibiotics and the development of resistant microorganisms. Can homeopathy be an alternative

Antibiotic resistance is a global public health problem. Once confined primarily to hospitals it is now increasingly common in primary care. The prevalence of resistant bacteria is rising, and organisms resistant to almost all antibiotics have been identified. The main causes are indiscriminate prescribing and the use of antibiotics in animal feeds and other agricultural applications. Policies to restrict use of antibiotics have had limited success. Homeopathy may have a role to play in combating the development of antibiotic resistance. Clinical research suggests that homeopathy is effective in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections in children, a frequent cause of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The EU recommends the use of homeopathy in organic animal husbandry, and it is used by significant numbers of farmers. At present there is little data on the effectiveness of homeopathy in this setting. Further research should be done.

Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review

AIM To systematically review surveys of 12-month prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide. METHODS Studies were identified via database searches to October 2015. Study quality was assessed using a six-item tool. All estimates were in the context of a survey which also reported prevalence of any complementary and alternative medicine use. RESULTS A total of 36 surveys were included. Of these, 67% met four of six quality criteria. Twelve-month prevalence of treatment by a homeopath was reported in 24 surveys of adults (median 1.5%, range 0.2-8.2%). Estimates for children were similar to those for adults. Rates in the USA, UK, Australia and Canada all ranged from 0.2% to 2.9% and remained stable over the years surveyed (1986-2012). Twelve-month prevalence of all use of homeopathy (purchase of over-the-counter homeopathic medicines and treatment by a homeopath) was reported in 10 surveys of adults (median 3.9%, range 0.7-9.8%) while a further 11 surveys which did not define the type of homeopathy use reported similar data. Rates in the USA and Australia ranged from 1.7% to 4.4% and remained stable over the years surveyed. The highest use was reported by a survey in Switzerland where homeopathy is covered by mandatory health insurance. CONCLUSIONS This review summarises 12-month prevalence of homeopathy use from surveys conducted in eleven countries (USA, UK, Australia, Israel, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, South Korea, Japan and Singapore). Each year a small but significant percentage of these general populations use homeopathy. This includes visits to homeopaths as well as purchase of over-the-counter homeopathic medicines.

Effect of Financial Incentives on Breastfeeding: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Although breastfeeding has a positive effect on an infant’s health and development, the prevalence is low in many communities. The effect of financial incentives to improve breastfeeding prevalence is unknown. Objective To assess the effect of an area-level financial incentive for breastfeeding on breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum. Design, Setting, and Participants The Nourishing Start for Health (NOSH) trial, a cluster randomized trial with 6 to 8 weeks follow-up, was conducted between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, in 92 electoral ward areas in England with baseline breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum less than 40%. A total of 10 010 mother-infant dyads resident in the 92 study electoral ward areas where the infant’s estimated or actual birth date fell between February 18, 2015, and February 17, 2016, were included. Areas were randomized to the incentive plus usual care (n = 46) (5398 mother-infant dyads) or to usual care alone (n = 46) (4612 mother-infant dyads). Interventions Usual care was delivered by clinicians (mainly midwives, health visitors) in a variety of maternity, neonatal, and infant feeding services, all of which were implementing the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative standards. Shopping vouchers worth £40 (US

Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review

50) were offered to mothers 5 times based on infant age (2 days, 10 days, 6-8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months), conditional on the infant receiving any breast milk. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was electoral ward area-level 6- to 8-week breastfeeding period prevalence, as assessed by clinicians at the routine 6- to 8-week postnatal check visit. Secondary outcomes were area-level period prevalence for breastfeeding initiation and for exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks. Results In the intervention (5398 mother-infant dyads) and control (4612 mother-infant dyads) group, the median (interquartile range) percentage of women aged 16 to 44 years was 36.2% (3.0%) and 37.4% (3.6%) years, respectively. After adjusting for baseline breastfeeding prevalence and local government area and weighting to reflect unequal cluster-level breastfeeding prevalence variances, a difference in mean 6- to 8-week breastfeeding prevalence of 5.7 percentage points (37.9% vs 31.7%; 95% CI for adjusted difference, 2.7% to 8.6%; P < .001) in favor of the intervention vs usual care was observed. No significant differences were observed for the mean prevalence of breastfeeding initiation (61.9% vs 57.5%; adjusted mean difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95%, CI, −0.4 to 6.2; P = .08) or the mean prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (27.0% vs 24.1%; adjusted mean difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.2 to 4.8; P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance Financial incentives may improve breastfeeding rates in areas with low baseline prevalence. Offering a financial incentive to women in areas of England with breastfeeding rates below 40% compared with usual care resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks. This was measured using routinely collected data. Trial Registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry: ISRCTN44898617.

Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series - comment by Tournier et al.

ContextEconomic evaluations of commonly used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies such as homeopathy are needed to contribute to the evidence base on which policy makers, clinicians, health-care payers, as well as patients base their health-care decisions in an era of constrained resources.ObjectivesTo review and assess existing economic evaluations of homeopathy.MethodsLiterature search was made to retrieve relevant publications using AMED, the Cochrane Library, CRD (DARE, NHS EED, HTA), EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the journal Homeopathy (former British Homoeopathic Journal). A hand search of relevant publications was carried out. Homeopathy researchers were contacted. Identified publications were independently assessed by two authors.ResultsFifteen relevant articles reported on 14 economic evaluations of homeopathy. Thirteen studies reported numbers of patients: a total of 3,500 patients received homeopathic treatment (median 97, interquartile range 48–268), and 10 studies reported on control group participants (median 57, IQR 40–362). Eight out of 14 studies found improvements in patients’ health together with cost savings. Four studies found that improvements in homeopathy patients were at least as good as in control group patients, at comparable costs. Two studies found improvements similar to conventional treatment, but at higher costs. Studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses.ConclusionsAlthough the identified evidence of the costs and potential benefits of homeopathy seemed promising, studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions based on existing economic evaluations of homeopathy. Recommendations for future research are presented.

Benefits and challenges of using the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design for testing an intervention for depression

Linked Comment: Jackson. Int J Clin Pract 2013; 67: 385. Linked Comment: Walach et al. Int J Clin Pract 2013; 67: 385–6. Linked Comment: Posadzki and Ernst. Int J Clin Pract 2013; 67: 386–7. Linked Comment: Grimes. Int J Clin Pract 2013; 67: 387. Linked Comment: Posadzki and Ernst. Int J Clin Pract 2013; 67: 389.

A patient reported outcome measure in homeopathic clinical practice for long-term conditions

BackgroundTrials which test the effectiveness of interventions compared with the status quo frequently encounter challenges. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design is an innovative approach to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials which seeks to address some of these challenges.Main textIn this article, we report our experiences with the first completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using the cmRCT design. This trial—the Depression in South Yorkshire (DEPSY) trial—involved comparison of treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU plus the offer of an intervention for people with self-reported long-term moderate to severe depression. In the trial, we used an existing large population-based cohort: the Yorkshire Health Study. We discuss our experiences with recruitment, attrition, crossover, data analysis, generalisability of results, and cost. The main challenges in using the cmRCT design were the high crossover to the control group and the lower questionnaire response rate among patients who refused the offer of treatment. However, the design did help facilitate efficient and complete recruitment of the trial population as well as analysable data that were generalisable to the population of interest. Attrition rates were also smaller than those reported in other depression trials.ConclusionThis first completed full trial using the cmRCT design testing an intervention for self-reported depression was associated with a number of important benefits. Further research is required to compare the acceptability and cost effectiveness of standard pragmatic RCT design with the cmRCT design.Trial registrationISRCTN registry: ISRCTN02484593. Registered on 7 Jan 2013.

User involvement in adolescents’ mental healthcare: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND This study was initiated as part of a quality improvement audit process to create standards around goal setting with our patients to understand and improve outcomes of homeopathic treatment. METHOD We used the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP2) as a tool to assist clinicians in setting the treatment goals across a wide range of diagnoses and other complaints in routine clinical practice at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital. The data collected from the MYMOP2 is of significance in its own right and the results are now reported in this paper. RESULTS A total of 198 patients with a wide range of complaints attended one to five consultations with 20 homeopathic doctors. Diagnostic categories were most commonly neoplasms (16.7%), psychological (13.9%) and genitourinary complaints (12.3%), with 66.7% suffering from these problems for at least one year. The three symptoms that bothered patients the most were pain, mental symptoms and tiredness/fatigue. A paired-samples t-test using an intention-to-treat analysis showed that the MYMOP2 profile score improved from 4.25 (IQR 3.50-5.00), with a mean change of 1.24 (95% CI 1.04, 1.44) from the first to the last consultation (p<0.001). Results were statistically significant both for completers (n=91) (p<0.001) and non-completers (n=107) (p<0.001) using last-observation-carried-forward, although completers did better than non-completers (p<0.001). The overall clinical significance of improvements was at least moderate. A repeated measures ANOVA test also showed statistically significant improvements (p<0.001). CONCLUSION The MYMOP2 results add to a growing body of observational data which demonstrates that when patients with long term conditions come under homeopathic care their presenting symptoms and wellbeing often improve. Offering a low cost high impact intervention to extend the range of choice to patients and to support self-care could be an important part of the NHS.

Depression treated by homeopaths: a study protocol for a pragmatic cohort multiple randomised controlled trial.

Introduction User involvement has become a growing importance in healthcare. The United Nations state that adolescents have a right to be heard, and user involvement in healthcare is a legal right in many countries. Some research provides an insight into the field of user involvement in somatic and mental healthcare for adults, but little is known about user involvement in adolescents’ mental healthcare, and no overview of the existing research evidence exists. Methods and analysis The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of existing research reporting on experiences with and the effectiveness and safety issues associated with user involvement for adolescents’ mental healthcare at the individual and organisational level. A systematic literature search and assessment of published research in the field of user involvement in adolescents’ mental healthcare will be carried out. Established guidelines will be used for data extraction (Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)), critical appraisal (Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary) and reporting of results (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and CASP). Confidence in the research evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Adolescents are included as coresearchers for the planning and carrying out of this systematic review. This systematic review will provide an overview of the existing research literature and thereby fill a knowledge gap. It may provide various stakeholders, including decision-makers, professionals, individuals and their families, with an overview of existing knowledge in an underexplored field of research. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as we are not collecting primary data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and at conference presentations and will be shared with stakeholder groups.