Search

20 consecutively enrolled children age 5–16 with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) received treatment by a homeopath (8 consultations and individualized remedies) for one year. Ten subsequently enrolled children received similar time and attention for 4 months. The study explored optimum treatment protocols; the effectiveness, deliverability and acceptability of treatment; and the feasibility of outcome measurement and recruitment. Parents completed Conners' Parent Rating Scale, Revised Long Version (CPRS-R:L) every 4 months, from which DSMIV total scores were extracted; and Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) every consultation. An interaction between time (baseline/4 months) and group (treatment/non-treatment) was found .756 F (1,28) = 9.06, p = 0.005. The intervention was associated with statistically significant improvements in treated children over the year: CPRS-R:L (t (18) = 4.529, p ≤ 0.000); MYMOP (t (18) = 6.938, p ≤ 0.000). Mean DSMIV total t scores decreased at each time point: baseline: 85 (SD 5.1); 4 months 76.2 (SD 10.9); and 12 months 71.5 (SD 12.77). Recruitment of control participants was problematic. Recruitment to treatment was feasible via ADHD support groups, charities, police support agencies and social services, not schools or NHS services. Attending appointments was problematic for some participants, but home visits did not improve uptake. The best venue was a familiar clinic. Some participants took medicines inappropriately, but generally taking homeopathic remedies was acceptable and well implemented. CPRS-R:L (80 items) was problematic for some parents. MYMOP was preferred by parents but not acceptable to stakeholders. In this small consecutive sample the intervention was associated with improvements in criminality, anger and children with a concomitant diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder ASD. Treatment by a homeopath was associated with sustained, increasing improvements and the intervention was acceptable to participants. More methodically rigorous research is warranted. “We recommend that future research in this area uses comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trial designs. We also recommend that these trials measure outcomes of relevance to stakeholder needs – the people and services who care for those with ADHD – parents, teachers and social workers and the criminal justice system”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Homeopathy is a system of therapeutics based on the Law of Similars where ‘like cures like’, using highly diluted substances that cause, in healthy persons, symptoms like those to be treated. Patients are prescribed for on an individual rather than diagnosis specific basis. This case report describes the progress of two siblings with multiple diagnoses (including ADHD), on multiple medications, receiving homeopathic treatment during one year. Multi-morbidity is a growing problem. Separate medicines are prescribed for each complaint resulting in polypharmacy, which is associated with increased incidence of adverse drug reactions. Methods The siblings received a variety of individualised homeopathic medicines, prescribed according to classical, clinical and isopathic methodologies. DSMIV ADHD total scores were measured every 4 months; and self-selected symptoms were measured using ‘Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile’ (MYMOP) during the 6 weekly consultations. Results Before treatment Sibling 1’s DSMIV total T score was 90+ (highest possible), MYMOP score was 5.25. Sibling 2’s DMSM total T score was 86, MYMOP score was 5.25. The siblings were on 8 medications each. After one year Sibling 1’s DSMIV total T score was 50 (normal range), MYMOP score 0.25. Sibling 2’s DSMIV total T score was 53, MYMOP score 0.00. Sibling 1 was not taking any conventional medications and sibling 2 was taking one medication. Conclusion Treatment by a homeopath employing a variety of homeopathic methodologies and medicines over 1 year was associated with improvements in ADHD status, patient generated outcomes, parent reported pathology and reduction in conventional medication. No causal conclusions on treatment efficacy can be derived, nor the effects of homeopathic medicines separated out from the reduction in conventional medicines. More systematic research is warranted to tease out these effects, and should document treatment by homeopaths as experienced in clinical practice to explore therapeutic potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction ADHD is a common and growing problem which manifests and is diagnosed via a cluster of behaviours such as inability to regulate emotions or manage motivational delay and problems with executive functioning. It frequently accompanies autism spectrum disorders and dyslexia. Homoeopathy is a system of therapeutics based on the Law of Similars where ‘like cures like’. Conditions are treated by highly diluted substances that cause, in healthy persons, symptoms like those of the condition to be treated. The aim of this case report is to describe the homoeopathic treatment and progress of one 16 year old youth with diagnoses of ADHD, Asperger's syndrome and dyslexia subjected to in-utero cannabis exposure. Methods The youth received individualised homoeopathic medicines and additional ultra-molecular dilutions of cannabis. Outcome was measured using the parent completed Conner's Parent Rating Scale–Revised–Long version (CPRS:R-L) every 4 months, with DSMIV total score selected for analysis; and Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Measure (MYMOP) every 6 weeks, completed by parent and patient. Results At start of treatment the patient's DSMIV total T score was 90+ (highest possible); after 18 months it was 59 (within normal range). MYMOP score at start of treatment was 4.5 and 1.75 after 18 months. Conclusion Treatment by a homoeopath over 1½ years was associated with improvements in ADHD status and patient generated outcomes. Ultra molecular dilutions of a recreational drug the patient was subjected to in-utero appear to have contributed to improvements. Systematic research with larger numbers would be required to confirm or refute this single case observation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]