Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review
- 802 Downloads
Economic 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.
To review and assess existing economic evaluations of homeopathy.
Literature 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.
Fifteen 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.
Although 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.
KeywordsComplementary and alternative medicine Economic evaluations Homeopathy Cost-effectiveness
JEL ClassificationC18 – Methodological Issues: General I10 – General I11 – Analysis of Health Care Markets I12 – Health Production I13 – Health Insurance, Public and Private I15 – Health and Economic Development
Thanks to Riikka Sievänen and Clare Relton for their comments on early versions of the article and Stephen Gordon for proofreading.
- 2.World Health Organization (WHO): WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2002–2005. Geneva: WHO/EDM/TRM 2002.1Google Scholar
- 4.Linde, K., Mondras, M., Vickers, A., ter Riet, G., Melchart, D.: Systematic reviews of complementary therapies: an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy. BMC Complement Altern Med 1:4. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/1/4 (2001). Accessed 18 April 2012
- 6.Bornhöft, G., Wolf, U., von Ammon, K., Righetti, M., Maxion-Bergemann, S., Baumgartner, S., Thurneysen, A., Matthiessen, P.F.: Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice: summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementärmed 13(suppl 2), 19–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Smallwood, C.: The role of complementary and alternative medicine in the NHS. An investigation into the potential contribution of mainstream complementary therapies to healthcare in the UK. http://www.getwelluk.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/SmallwoodReport.pdf (2005). Accessed 7 April 2012
- 9.Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
- 10.Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Sterne, J. A. C.: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S. (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org Accessed 18 April 2012
- 11.Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group (Cochrane CCRG). Data extraction template for Cochrane reviews. Version 1.5.0, updated 3 May 2001. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/chcp/cochrane/resources.html Accessed 18 April 2012
- 12.Bachinger, A., Rappenhöner, B., Rychlik, R.: Socioeconomic effectiveness of Zeel comp.-therapy compared to patients with hyaluronic acid in patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee. [Zur sozioökonomischen Effizienz einer Zeel comp.-Therapie im Vergleich zu Hylauronsäure bei Patienten mit Gonarthrose.] [German] Z Orthop 134(4) (1996)Google Scholar
- 21.Thompson, E.A., Shaw, A., Nichol, J., Hollinghurst, S., Henderson, A.J., Thompson, T., Sharp, D.: The feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare usual care with usual care plus individualised homeopathy, in children requiring secondary care for asthma. Homeopathy 100(3), 122–130 (2011)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Trichard, M., Chaufferin, G., Dubreuil, C., Nicoloyannis, N., Duru, G.: Effectiveness, quality of life, and cost of caring for children in France with recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis managed by homeopathic or non-homeopathic general practitioners. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 12(6), 419–427 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Malekzadeh, R.: POLYIRAN in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and elderly Iranians. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01271985. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01271985 (2012) Accessed 4 May 2012
- 36.National Institute of Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, South Yorkshire (NIHR CLAHRC SY).: Participants–Research projects. http://clahrc-sy.nihr.ac.uk/index.html (2012) Accessed 4 May 2012
- 37.Relton, C., Bissell, P., Smith, C., Blackburn, J., Cooper, C.L., Nicholl, J., Tod, A., Copeland, R., Loban, A., Chater, T., Thomas, K., Young, T., Weir, C., Harrison, G., Millbourn, A., Manners, R.: South Yorkshire Cohort: a ‘cohort trials facility’ study of health and weight: Protocol for the recruitment phase. BMC Public Health; 11:640. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/640 (2011) Accessed 4 May 2012
- 42.Bridges, J.F.P., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., Johnson, F.R., Mauskopf, J.: Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14, 403–413 (2011)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar