-
8/10/2019 Individualised Homeopathy After Cancer Treatment
1/3
www.nursingtimes.net/ Vol 110 No 41 / Nursing Times 08.10.14
17
Keywords:Cancer/Survivorship/
Homeopathy
This article has been double-blind
peer reviewed
Nursing PracticeResearch
Complementary therapies
Homeopathy can
improve wellbeing
Author Jennifer Poole is chartered
psychologist and registered homeopath,
and researcher and teacher at Nemeton
Research Foundation, Romsey.
AbstractPoole J (2014) Individualised
homeopathy after cancer treatment.
Nursing Times; 110: 41, 17-19.
Background Increasingly, patients are
surviving cancer and presenting with new
health challenges, and there is greater
demand for self-help and complementary
and alternative medicine (CAM).
AimTo explore the benefits of a three-
month course of individualised
homeopathy (IH) for survivors of cancer.
Design Small, community-based study.
SettingHampshire, UK.
Method Fifteen survivors of any type of
cancer were recruited by a walk-in cancer
support centre. Conventional treatment
had to have taken place within the last
three years. Patients scored their total,
physical and emotional wellbeing using the
Functional Assessment of Chronic IllnessTherapy for Cancer
(FACIT-G) before and
after receiving four IH sessions.
Results Eleven women had statistically
positive results for emotional, physical and
total wellbeing based on FACIT-G scores.
ConclusionFindings support previous
research, suggesting CAM or IH could be
beneficial for survivors of cancer.
Around two million people sur-
vive cancer for more than fiveyears in the UK (Department
ofHealth et al, 2010), and 50% of
patients with cancer now live for a decadeor more (Boseley,
2014). These positive facts
bring with them new health challenges: theUS Institute of
Medicine noted that lateand long-term effects of cancer include
5 keypoints
1In the UK,
around twomillion people
currently survive
cancer for more
than five years
2These patientspresent withnew health
challenges
3A community-basedevaluation of
individualised
homeopathy for
cancer survivors
demonstrated
statistically
positive results
4Physical andemotionalwellbeing
improved after
three months of
individualised
homeopathy
5Findingssupportprevious research,suggesting
individualised
homeopathy
could benefit
survivorship
initiatives
susceptibility to cardiovascular disease,diabetes, cognitive
dysfunction andfatigue (Hewitt et al, 2006). Life-long post-cancer
care will be required by more andmore survivors (Oeffinger and
McCabe,2006), so there is a greater need for appro-priate health
initiatives in symptom con-trol and management for late-stage
can-cers and those that form part of the generalrecovery from
cancer treatments.
As part of Macmillan Cancer Supportsrecovery programme, patient
feedback hashighlighted that survivors would like toknow how to
look after themselves (Mac-millan Cancer Support, 2013). This
desire isparalleled by an increased demand frompatients with
long-term illness for com-plementary and alternative medicine(CAM)
(Mueller, 2012). CAM functions onthe premise that the body and mind
havean innate healing potential that can bestrengthened in various
ways (Thompson,2009). A study of a complementary therapy
service offering aromatherapy, massage,reflexology, shiatsu and
homoeopathy topatients with cancer found benefits fromall therapies
(Briscoe and Browne, 2013).The improvement rate for homeopathy
was 21%; it is not clear whether the home-opathy was
individualised to the patient.
There are two broad methodologies inhomeopathy: Therapeutic
prescribed for a specific
ailment by name (diagnosis); Individualised aimed at
combined,
presenting psycho/physical symptoms.When accurately prescribed,
the latter
approach can evoke a positive globalimmune system response and
is generallyconsidered to be holistic and patient-centred (Brien et
al, 2011). Research intoindividualised homeopathy (IH) shows it
In this article...
Why survivors of cancer are presenting with health
challenges
Evidence supporting homeopathy use in cancer survivors Results
on individualised homeopathy after cancer treatment
A community-based evaluation of individualised homeopathy for
women aftercancer treatment showed positive results for total,
physical and emotional wellbeing
Individualised homeopathyafter cancer treatment
Alamy
-
8/10/2019 Individualised Homeopathy After Cancer Treatment
2/3
18 Nursing Times 08.10.14/ Vol 110 No 41 /
www.nursingtimes.net
Nursing PracticeResearch
There were some interesting findings. Inparticular, the two
patients with stage-D(most severe) cancer (P1 and P8) had
beenadvised no further medical treatment wasavailable. P8s FACIT-G
scores on each scaleonly marginally improved after the IH; P1stotal
FACIT-G score, however, increased by16 points (emotional = 4,
physical = 12).Physical improvement did not translateinto reduced
anxiety about prognosis.
Participants in the O (no cancer) groupalso varied in outcome.
For example, thetwo who had been clear of cancer long term(P7, two
years; P10, three years) initiallyrated themselves highest of the
group fortotal wellbeing (P7 = 69.0; P10 = 67.5). As they
were furthest from the cancer period, thisis not surprising.
Interestingly, however, P7,
while remaining roughly the same physi-cally, increased her
emotional wellbeingscore by 6.5 points after receiving IH. P10
(who also presented with chronic herpesand a prolapsed uterus)
showed the oppo-site effect, remaining the same in terms
ofemotional wellbeing but increasing herphysical score by 4.5
points.
P9 was the only participant indicating aworse physical state.
She had been cancerfree for a year, but also had multiple
scle-rosis, which could explain the drop in herscore.
Interestingly, she recorded an overallincrease of 15.0 points in
emotional well-
being (from 7.0 to 22.0) after receiving IH,despite worsening
physically. This some-
what incongruent result may suggest otherfactors influenced her
ratings.
P11 (cancer in situ) also rated a muchgreater increase in
emotional (9.5 points)compared with physical (2 points) well-
being; she appeared to benefit greatly from
after IH (mean = 58.1), suggesting partici-pants experienced a
significant improve-ment in combined wellbeing after the IHsessions
(t [10] = -5.2, P
-
8/10/2019 Individualised Homeopathy After Cancer Treatment
3/3
www.nursingtimes.net/ Vol 110 No 41 / Nursing Times 08.10.14
19
the intervention and the opportunity totalk through personal
issues.
Overall, participants showed individual
patterns of response to IH that did not seemto be dependent on
cancer stage or the timethat had passed since they received
theirdiagnosis and conventional treatment.
DiscussionThis project aimed to show IHs potential
inpost-cancer-treatment care. The group as a
whole showed statistically significant, posi-tive results for
total, physical and emotional
wellbeing, suggesting IH has a role insymptom control and
general recoveryfrom conventional cancer treatment.
Of long-term survivors of cancer,20-30% consistently report
having a poorerquality of life than those who have not hadcancer.
Long-term survivors also reportedpsychological problems such as
anxiety(Oeffinger and McCabe, 2006). This raisescortisol levels,
which, if prolonged, cansuppress immune function (Turner-Cobbet al,
2001); such cancer-based fear andanxiety could, therefore, have a
directimpact on survival rates.
In this study participants rated higherfor quality of life after
receiving IH. All buttwo also improved psychologically; the
psy-
chological wellbeing of those two remainedunchanged, but both
recorded improvedratings for physical and total wellbeing.
Effect sizeEffect size combines the improvement
with the variation found in an interventionstudy; an effect size
of >0.4 is seen to indi-cate an intervention worth pursuing
inpractice (Hattie, 2003). In this study IHdelivered effect sizes
of 0.6 in total andphysical wellbeing, and 1.6 in emotional
wellbeing, suggesting it can improvepatients physical and
emotional wellbeing.
Limitations and future directionsThe study had three main
limitations: Absence of male participants; Small group size;
Lack of long-term outcome measures.A larger, controlled study
linked with
an oncology outpatient unit could address
each of these and be a positive next step.FACIT-G was an
effective measure for
this study, but is perhaps more suited topatients with cancer
who have only recently
been diagnosed and treated. In this study,the two participants
whose treatment wasfurther in the past scored near to the max-imum
possible before commencing IH, cre-ating a potential ceiling effect
for post-IHratings; as a result, in these participants,there was a
risk of the intervention beingunder-rated. Reducing time after
diagnosisand treatment from three years to one (eligi-
bility criterion) may have resolved this.
ConclusionThis was a small, community-based studydesigned to
assess the holistic potential ofIH in post-cancer-treatment care. A
posi-tive effect was found, which did not appearto depend entirely
on cancer diagnosis,cancer stage or time since diagnosis
andconventional treatment. These resultstherefore support previous
studies(Briscoe and Browne, 2013; Rostock et al,2011; Thompson and
Reilly, 2002; Clover etal, 1995) that suggest CAM may benefit
patients who have, or have had, cancer. Inaddition, a recent
Swiss evaluation foundCAM interventions, especially homeop-athy, to
be effective, safe and cost effective(Bornhoft and Matthiessen,
2011). Effectsizes in this study, particularly in the emo-tional
wellbeing sub-scale, further supportthe suggestion that IH has a
key role toplay in symptom control and generalrecovery initiatives,
and could form a
viable option within Macmillan CancerSupports recovery programme
and as partof the National Cancer Survivorship Initia-tive (DH et
al, 2010). NT
The study was supported by a grant
from the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT).
No part was played in the planning or
running of the study by HAT.
ReferencesBornhft G, Matthiessen P(2011) Homeopathy
inHealthcare: An HTA Report on Homeopathy as
Part of the Swiss Complementary Medicine
Evaluation Programme.E-book. Berlin: Springer.Boseley S (2014)
Cancer survival rates: half of NewUK patients can expect to live
for another decade.
The Guardian.19 April 2014.Brien SB et al (2011) Integrated
medicine in themanagement of chronic illness: a qualitative
study.
British Journal of General Practitioners; 61: 583, 89-96.Briscoe
J, Browne N(2013) Effects ofcomplementary therapies in cancer care.
NursingTimes;109: 41, 18-20.Clover A et al (1995) Complementary
cancertherapy: a pilot study of patients, therapies andquality of
life. Complementary Therapies inMedicine;3: 3, 129-133.Department
of Health et al(2010) National CancerSurvivorship Initiative:
Vision.tinyurl.com/DHCancerSurvivorshipHattie J(2003) Teachers Make
a Difference: What
is the Research Evidence? tinyurl.com/TeachersDiffHewitt M et al
(2006) From Cancer Patient toCancer Survivor: Lost in
Transition.Washington DC:The National Academies Press.Macmillan
Cancer Support(2013)After CancerTreatment: A Guide for
Professionals. tinyurl.com/MacmillanAfterCancerMueller M(2012) Is
homeopathy an effectivecancer treatment? The American
Homoeopath;18.tinyurl.com/EffectiveHomeopathyMuellerNational Cancer
Institute (2014) SEER TrainingModules.
tinyurl.com/SEERCancerStageOeffinger KC, McCabe MS(2006) Models
fordelivering survivorship care.Journal of ClinicalOncology;24: 32,
5117-5124.Rostock M et al(2011) Classical homeopathy in
thetreatment of cancer patients a prospectiveobservational study of
two independent cohorts.
BMC Cancer;11: 19.Thompson E (2009)Adjustment andEmpowerment.
Health and Homeopathy.tinyurl.com/ThompsonHomeopathyThompson E,
Reilly D(2002) The homeopathicapproach to symptom control in the
cancerpatient: a prospective observational study.
Palliative Medicine;16: 3, 227-233.Turner-Cobb J et al (2001)
Psychosocial effects ofimmune function and disease progression in
cancer:human studies. In: Ader R et al
(2001)Psycho-neuroimmunology, Vol 2.New York: Academic
Press.Webster K et al (2003) The FunctionalAssessment of Chronic
Illness Therapy (FACIT-G)Measurement System: properties,
applications andinterpretation. Health and Quality of LifeOutcomes;
16: 1, 79.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Before
individualised
homeopathy
After
individualised
homeopathy
Score
Participant
FIG 1. PHYSICAL WELLBEING SCORES
For more on this topic go online...
Effects of complementarytherapies in cancer care
Bit.ly/NTCompTherapyCancer
0 .00 .20 .40 .60 .81 .0
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Before
individualised
homeopathy
After
individualised
homeopathy
Score
Participant
FIG 2. EMOTIONAL WELLBEING SCORES
For a Nursing Times Learning unit on
nausea and fatigue in oncology, go to
nursingtimes.net/nausea
