Search

Background A number of German statutory health insurance companies are offering integrated care contracts for homeopathy (ICCHs) that cover the reimbursement of homeopathic treatment. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these contracts are highly debated. Methods To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment after an additional enrollment in an ICCH, a comparative, prospective, observational study was conducted in which participants in the ICCH (HOM group) were compared with matched (on diagnosis, sex and age) insured individuals (CON group) who received usual care alone. Those insured with either migraine or headache, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis and depression were included. Primary effectiveness outcomes were the baseline adjusted scores of diagnosis-specific questionnaires (e.g. RQLQ, AQLQ, DLQI, BDI-II) after 6 months. Primary cost-effectiveness endpoints were the baseline adjusted total costs from an insurer perspective in relation to the achieved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were derived from health claims data and QALYs were calculated based on SF-12 data. Results Data from 2524 participants (1543 HOM group) were analyzed. The primary effectiveness outcomes after six months were statistically significant in favor of the HOM group for migraine or headache (Δ = difference between groups, days with headache: − 0.9, p = 0.042), asthma (Δ-AQLQ(S): + 0.4, p = 0.014), atopic dermatitis (Δ-DLQI: − 5.6, p ≤ 0.001) and depression (Δ-BDI-II: − 5.6, p ≤ 0.001). BDI-II differences reached the minimal clinically important difference. For all diagnoses, the adjusted mean total costs over 12 months were higher in the HOM group from an insurer perspective, with migraine or headache, atopic dermatitis and depression suggesting cost-effectiveness in terms of additional costs per QALY gained. Conclusion After an additional enrollment in the ICCH, the treatment of participants with depression showed minimally clinically relevant improvements. From an insurer perspective, treatment with an ICCH enrollment resulted in higher costs over all diagnoses but seemed to be cost-effective for migraine or headache, atopic dermatitis and depression according to international used threshold values. Based on the study design and further limitations, our findings should be considered cautiously and no conclusions regarding the effectiveness of specific treatment components can be made. Further research is needed to overcome limitations of this study and to confirm our findings. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01854580. Registered 15 March 2013 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01854580

Background We aimed to compare patients’ and physicians’ safety reporting using data from large acupuncture trials (44,818 patients) and to determine associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions. Methods Six pragmatic randomized trials with an additional non-randomized study arm that included those patients who refused randomization were evaluated. Patients received acupuncture treatment for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, chronic neck pain, chronic low back pain, chronic headache, dysmenorrhea, or allergic rhinitis or asthma. Safety outcomes were evaluated by questionnaires from both the physicians and the patients. To determine level of agreement between physicians and patients on the prevalence of adverse reactions, Cohen’s kappa was used. With multilevel models associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions were assessed. Results Patients reported on average three times more adverse reactions than the study physicians: for bleeding/haematoma, 6.7% of patients (n = 2458) vs. 0.6% of physicians (n = 255) and for pain, 1.7% of patients (n = 636) vs. 0.5% of physicians (n = 207). We found only minor agreements between patients and physicians (maximum Cohen’s kappa: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [0.49;0.51] for depressive mood). Being a female and participation in the randomization were associated with higher odds of reporting an adverse reaction. Conclusions In our study, patients’ and physicians’ reports on adverse reactions of acupuncture differed substantially, possibly due to differences in patients’ and physicians’ questionnaires and definitions. For the assessment of safety, we strongly support the inclusion of patients’ and physicians’ reports while ensuring standardization of data collection and definitions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-019-2638-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim was to develop and evaluate a training program for physicians for communicating with breast cancer patients about complementary medicine (CM). In a cluster-randomized pilot trial eight breast cancer centers (two physicians per center) were randomized to either a complementary communication training program (9 h e-learning + 20 h on-site skills training) or to a control group without training. Each physician was asked to consult ten patients for whom he or she is not the physician in charge. We used mixed methods: Quantitative outcomes included physicians’ assessments (empathy, complexity of consultation, knowledge transfer) and patients’ assessments (satisfaction, empathy, knowledge transfer). For qualitative analyses, 15 (eight in the training and seven in the control group) videotaped consultations were analyzed based on grounded theory, and separate focus groups with the physicians of both groups were conducted. A total of 137 patients were included. Although cluster-randomized, physicians in the two groups differed. Those in the training group were younger (33.4 ± 8.9 vs. 40.0 ± 8.5 years) and had less work experience (5.4 ± 8.9 vs. 11.1 ± 7.4 years). Patient satisfaction with the CM consultation was relatively high on a scale from 0 to 24 and was comparable in the two groups (training group: 19.4 ± 4.6; control group 20.5 ± 4.1). The qualitative findings showed that physicians structured majority of consultations as taught during the training. Comparing only the younger and less CM experienced physicians, those trained in CM communication felt more confident discussing CM-related topics than those without training. A CM communication-training program might be especially beneficial for physicians with less consulting experience when communicating about CM-related issues. A larger trial using more suitable quantitative outcomes needs to confirm this. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02223091 , date of registration: 7 February 2014.

Background Today, the increasing demand for complementary medicine encourages health care providers to adapt and create integrative medicine departments or services within clinics. However, because of their differing philosophies, historical development, and settings, merging the partners (conventional and complementary medicine) is often difficult. It is necessary to understand the similarities and differences in both cultures to support a successful and sustainable integration. The aim of this project was to develop a theoretical model and practical steps that are based on theories from mergers in business to facilitate the implementation of an integrative medicine department. Methods Based on a literature search and expert discussions, the cultures were described and model domains were developed. These were applied to two case studies to develop the final model. Furthermore, a checklist with practical steps was devised. Results Conventional medicine and complementary medicine have developed different corporate cultures. The final model, which should help to foster integration by bridging between these cultures, is based on four overall aspects: culture, strategy, organizational tools and outcomes. Each culture is represented by three dimensions in the model: corporate philosophy (core and identity of the medicine and the clinic), patient (all characteristics of the professional team’s contact with the patient), and professional team (the characteristics of the interactions within the professional team). Conclusion Overall, corporate culture differs between conventional and complementary medicine; when planning the implementation of an integrative medicine department, the developed model and the checklist can support better integration. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-015-0696-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.