Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31083699›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Differences in healthcare utilisation between users and non-users of homeopathic products in Spain: Results from three waves of the National Health Survey (2011-2017).

Jaime Pinilla, Alejandro Rodriguez-Caro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jaime PinillaDepartment of Quantitative Methods, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Alejandro Rodriguez-CaroDepartment of Quantitative Methods, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8080-3094

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the differences in the use of healthcare services: visits to the doctor and hospitalisation, performance of routine tests, and preventive influenza vaccination, between users and non-users of homeopathic products.

methodsWe used the microdata for adults over 15 years old from three waves of the Spanish National Health Survey, corresponding to the years 2011, 2014 and 2017. We proposed a comparative design of a quasi-experimental type, considering as the treatment group the respondents who said that they had used homeopathic products in the past two weeks; and another group, for control, comprising respondents who said that they had not used this type of products, but only conventional medicines, with observable characteristics similar to those of the treatment group. We used a model for rare events logistics regression (relogit) to estimate the probability of using homeopathy. From the propensity score and a vector of control variables, we used techniques of genetic matching to match individuals from the treatment group with similar individuals belonging to the control group.

resultsThere are no statistically significant differences between users and non-users of homeopathy in visits to the general practitioner (P>|z| 0.387), to the specialist (P>|z| 0.52), in hospitalisations (P>|z| 0.592) or in the use of emergency services (P>|z| 0.109). Nor were there any statistically significant differences in the performance of routine tests, except for the faecal occult blood test, which is more prevalent in users of homeopathic products. 20.9% of users of homeopathy had done this test compared with 15.3% of non-users (P>|z| 0.022). There are also significant differences in vaccination against influenza with 12.6% of homeopathy users stating that they had been vaccinated in the last influenza campaign, against 21.0% of non-users (P>|z| <0.001). The health conditions which homeopathy users reported were constipation (OR: 1.65 CI: 1.16-2.36), malignant tumour (OR: 1.60 CI: 1.09-2.36) osteoporosis (OR: 1.49 CI: 1.05-2.10), varicose veins (OR: 1.35 CI: 1.05-1.74) and allergy (OR: 1.35 CI: 1.06-1.72).

conclusionsDifferences in the use of healthcare resources between users and non-users of homeopathic products have not been found to be statistically significant in Spain. It has been shown that most homeopathic products are used as a complement to treatment with conventional medicine. Nevertheless, our results highlight some warning signs which should raise the attention of healthcare authorities. The use of these therapies in patients with malignant tumours and the rejection of vaccines are warning signs of a possible health hazard in the long term.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth SurveysHomeopathyHumansMaleMateria MedicaMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareSpainMateria Medica

Identifiers

PMID31083699
PMCPMC6513046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.