Tratamento Homeopático: buscando estratégias para avaliação de seus resultados e efetividade

Abstract

Given the increasing demand for other therapeutic modalities that address the human being holistically and their introduction in the SUS, it is very important to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these forms of care. Homeopathy is part of this group of therapies, and for its assessment, there may be a need to use multiple instruments to cover the various aspects of a integral response to treatment. This study aimed to identify and establish categories of analysis and tools to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of this treatment, and test them, considering the characteristics of this rationality. We searched in national and international literature works on the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment, trying to define the state of the art but also of the main problems, constraints and possibilities of these assessments in view of its full result. Then the research was aimed at drafting, proposing and testing the most appropriate methodology to assess homeopathic treatment in this perspective. An observational study was conducted in a homeopathic public unit in the city of Juiz de Fora, with individualized treatment, adopting an evaluation strategy that comprised three components: (1) assessment of quality of life using the SF-36; (2) analysis seeking to objectify and quantify clinical complaints and other attributes of subjective nature (feeling of well-being, sleep, memory and cognitive status, sexual life, feelings of happiness) by using a visual analogue scale (VAS) to measure the intensity and closed options, such as the SF-36, to estimate the frequency of these aspects; and (3) qualitative interviews through semi-structured questionnaire, in order to address issues related to Biopathography and changes in vital attitude (such as how patients face everyday problems, trigger factors of complaints, how they feel and react, and ask their projects of life and happiness). The application of the SF-36 showed some difficulties in understanding by the participants, perhaps due to low education level of respondents, but was useful for research, although it shows limitations in evaluating the integral aspect of the outcome of therapy examined. The monitoring of clinical symptoms, sense of well-being, sleep and cognitive status and memory were captured and measured adequately by both the VAS (intensity of symptoms) and by the closed responses to measure the frequency. Situations like the assessments of biopathography and sexuality were insufficient to be properly assessed by the investigator and the patient only. The doctor could help in these cases. Wider issues in assessing the change in vital attitude, as reaction to destabilizing factors and design of life and happiness require qualitative methodology to make progress in the polls waiting for future solutions. The combination of these strategies in randomized controlled trials, with samples of satisfactory magnitude, preferably in the network and which clearly define the conditions under which homeopathic care occurred and how one came to each prescription, can be useful for evaluating the effectiveness of integral homeopathic treatment.