ArticleHealth science reports2026
Efficacy of a Decision-Making Aid About Homeopathy in Patients With Cancer: A Single-Arm, Pre-Post Observational Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Despite lacking evidence, homeopathy continues to enjoy high levels of usage and general acceptance. Particularly concerning the treatment of cancer, this can pose risks, especially when it leads to delay or replacement of evidence-based treatments. The goal was to assess informed decision-making and analyze outcomes. Methods: The decision aid summarized key aspects of homeopathy, including its definition, distinction from naturopathy, production, approval, scientific evidence, placebo effects, use in cancer, side effects, and insurance coverage. Therefore, we conducted a single arm, pre-post observational survey. A questionnaire assessed knowledge, attitudes, and use of homeopathy before and after reading the aid. It included demographic data, topic-specific knowledge, use for certain medical conditions, and an evaluation section. A total of 123 adult cancer patients were recruited from oncology centers across Germany (2022), with no age restrictions. Changes in knowledge and attitudes were analyzed. Results: Participants significantly revised their views on homeopathy for most medical conditions; beliefs about its use for psychological stress remained unchanged. Knowledge about placebo effects and potentization improved significantly, whereas understanding of side effects did not. Prior use of homeopathy influenced post-intervention decisions. Educational background and socioeconomic status showed no significant effects, demonstrating broad applicability of the intervention. Ordinal regression analyzes indicated that participants with lower prior knowledge benefited more, particularly regarding "potentization" and "placebo difference." Post-intervention knowledge gains varied by prior knowledge and gender, with less-informed participants and male respondents benefiting more. Most participants felt well informed, gained new insights, and would recommend the material. Conclusion: The decision aid demonstrated potential to support evidence-based decision-making among oncology patients.However, heterogeneity in outcomes indicates the influence of unmeasured factors, such as belief systems or emotional needs.Future research should explore tailoring decision aids to gender- and knowledge-levels. Integrating such tools into patient communication could enhance informed choice where alternative healing methods remain prevalent.
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.