Observational studyBMC public health2019
Investigating the sociodemographic profile and health-related outcomes of chronically ill homeopathic patients: results from an observational multi-centered study in Bulgaria.
Observational study in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) field in Europe has been a focus of research developments and public health policy changes for years. However, these processes are still in their infancy phase in Bulgaria. In this paper, homeopathy is the investigated CAM-modality at a Bulgarian context. The aim is threefold: 1) to outline the sociodemographic profile of the chronically ill adult patients (≥18 years old) who choose homeopathic medical treatment (HMT); 2) To identify the patients' sources and needs of information about homeopathy, and the reasons to use HMT; and 3) to measure health-related outcomes in patients who have visited homeopathic clinics to look for HMT of their chronic conditions.
methodsA cross-sectional observational multi-centered study (≥18 years old, n = 211) was conducted between June 2016 to Dec. 2017 in Bulgaria. Potentially eligible participants for the study were all chronically ill patients who had been receiving HMT for a year or more and had visited the homeopathic clinics for a follow up within the study period. The EQ-5D-3L instrument was applied with an additional questionnaire on sociodemographic and health related data. RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe study results outlined the country specific sociodemographic profile of the chronically ill homeopathic patients in Bulgaria: they are predominantly female, with higher education and at the age groups between 30 and 50. The EQ-5D-3L version, was applied to measure patients' health-related quality of life and to promote the use of a standardized generic instrument as a complementary and reliable scientific tool to assess the patient-reported outcomes of the homeopathic patients. Regarding the reasons of choice: the participants choose HMT because it is safe and mild, to avoid excessive antibiotic use, because the conventional treatment was not successful, etc. The study confirms the social demand for more scientific information about homeopathy. Participants stated that the medical universities' curriculum should keep pace with the modern CAM-developments. A key message is that the future of the successful chronic disease management is in the integration of the conventional and CAM-modalities and these processes should be facilitated through public health regulations, education and research. The presented study is a supportive action in this direction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.