medigraphic.com
Órgano de Difusión de la Asociación Académica Panamericana de Medicina Familiar A.C.

2020, Number 2

<< Back

Arch Med Fam 2020; 22 (2)

Mistreate of couple in immigrant women residents in a Urban Health Center of Murcia, Spain

Leal HM, Martínez MF, Pérez VM, García RR

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 83-93
PDF size: 299.76 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectives: To know the opinion of doctors and patients on the use and effectiveness of homeopathy in the consultations. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study using two different autocumplimentadas surveys, one conducted physicians (20 items) and other patients (12 items). They were included 184 doctors and 156 patients randomly selected both in hospitals and primary care. Results: 89.4% (159) of physicians surveyed never use homeopathy, sometimes used 13% (24), almost always 0.6% (1) and provided none. 76.6% (141) of physicians believe that homeopathy is never effective, believe that only sometimes effective 20.7% (38), almost always 1.6% (3) and always 1, 1% (2). Regarding patients surveyed 0.6% (1) seems too bad that your doctor prescribes homeopathy, seems wrong to 18.6% (29) 32.1% Regular (50) or 39, 7% (62) and fine to 9% (14). Conclusions: The degree of knowledge and opinion about homeopathy among physicians working for the national health system is poor. Patients better value homeopathy doctors working for the national health system.


REFERENCES

  1. Hahnemann S. Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivissive in sano corpore humano observatis. Leipzig 1805, Barthius.

  2. Hahnemann S. Organon de la Medicina. 6.ª ed. Mexico: Porrua; 1984.

  3. Pita MJ. Ética profesional en la práctica de la medicina homeopática. Estudio de una encuesta a usuarios. Rev Med Homeopat 2014; 7:58-67.

  4. Díaz G, Moreno G, Balmy S. Estudio sobre conocimiento y uso de la homeopatía en España. Rev Med Ho-meopat 2012; 5:113-119.

  5. Alegre J, García JM, Guasp C, Joven E, Piqué J, Tugues A. Estudio observacional sobre la prescripción en la práctica homeopática diaria. Rev Med Homeopat 2010; 3:133-137.

  6. García Alonso F. Medicinas alternativas y bioética. El escéptico. Disponible en: http://www.escepticos.es/node/2261.

  7. Hortal A, Fernández JL, coordinadores. La ética de las profesiones. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia de Comillas; 1994.

  8. López JE, La Salle Toro R, López Salazar JE. La medicina como profesión. Etapas de la capacitación profesional. Gac Med Caracas 2008;116:161-7.

  9. Mir Tubau J, Busquets Alibés E. Principios de Ética Biomédica, de Tom L. Beauchamp y James F. Childress. Bioetica & Debat 2011;64:1-7.

  10. Rubio Montañés M. Profesionalismo en el siglo XXI: el compromiso del médico de familia. Master de Bioética, Institut Borja de Bioética, Universidad Ramón Llull, 2012-2013.

  11. Teixeira J. Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view.Homeopathy. 2007;96:158-62.

  12. Teixeira MZ.La evidencia científica del modelo epistemológico homeopático. La Homeopatía de México. 2013;82: 5-20.

  13. OMWHI.Homeopathy in the Word.

  14. Van Wassenhoven M, editor.Scientific framework of homeopathy. Evidence based homeopathy, 2012. New Delhi; LMHI and ECH Secretary for Research; 2012.

  15. Les Francais et l´homéopathie. IPSOS/Boiron; Enero 2012.

  16. Estudio BVA. Francia. Febrero 2004.

  17. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350:834-43.

  18. Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP.Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy.A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J clin Pharmacol 2000;56:27-33.

  19. Garattini S.The contradictions of homeopathy legislation.Eur J Intern Med 2015;26:230-1.

  20. Barros NF, Fiuza AR. Evidence-based medicine and prejudice-based medicine: thecase of homeopathy. Cad SaudePublica 2014;30:2368-2376.

  21. Bellavite P, Marzotto M, Olioso D, Moratti E, Conforti A. High-dilution effects revisited. 1. Physicochemical aspects. Homeopathy 2014;103: 4-21.

  22. Hahn RG. Homeopathy: meta-analyses of pooled clinical data. Forsch Komplementmed 2013; 20:376-81.

  23. Vithoulkas G. Serious mistakes in meta-analysis of homeopathic research. J Med Life. 2017;10: 47-49.

  24. Stub T, Musial F, Kristoffersen AA, Alræk T, Liu J. Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Med 2016; 26:146-63.

  25. Hawke K, van Driel ML, Buffington BJ, McGuire TM, King D. Homeopathic medicinal products for preventing and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;9:CD005974.

  26. Viksveen P, Dymitr Z, Simoens S. Economic evaluations of homeopathy: a review.Eur J Health Econ 2014;15:157-74.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com