Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2003; 8: 485
Homoeopaths are traditionally taught to identify pro-vers based on factual evidence in the materia medica. The objective of the study was to determine the degree by which homoeopaths employ clinical experience and/or intuition within a questionnaire-based proving study to enable them to make their proving decision.
Three experienced independent homoeopathic clinicians/proving researchers rated whether subjects (n = 211) that took part in a questionnaire-based proving study of Belladonna C30, had proved. Decisions were based solely on symptoms reported in the subject’s questionnaire, the raters having no personal contact with the subjects. The degree to which each rater employed clinical experience and/or intuition to enable their decision was recorded. The primary outcome was the process of homoeopathic decision-making.
All raters reported using clinical experience in a higher proportion of subjects than those reported for intuition. Raters 1 and 2 were significantly more likely to classify non-provers (Rater 1, F = 9.3, n = 112, P < 0.001; Rater 2, F = 46.2, n = 71, P < 0.001) using clinical experience, and two raters significantly increased their use of intuition to enable them to classify provers (Rater 2, F = 6.03, n = 76, P = 0.003; Rater 3, F = 5.42, n = 22, P = 0.005). Only rater 3 was significantly more likely to classify provers based on high intuitions’ scores (χ2 = 13.79, df = 2, P < 0.001).
Homoeopaths, provided with factual evidence alone, increased their reliance on intuition to rate a prover. Issues regarding the education of homoeopaths are highlighted.
