NI CAM ‘Trial’ – An anecdote of surveys?
Another day, another pile of credulous pap with GPs unwittingly endorsing complementary medicine. What is the collective noun for a group of consumer surveys masquerading as science?
It was reported here that “Patients ‘healthier’ after complementary medicine”. The study was an Evaluation of a CAM Pilot Project in Northern Ireland (2008).
This is what they did.
Between February 2007 and February 2008, 713 patients presented with a variety of musculoskeletal and mental health problems and were referred to a range of therapies including: chiropractic; osteopathy; reflexology; massage; aromatherapy; acupuncture; and, homeopathy. The pilot project was funded by the Department of Health,Social Services and Public Safety Northern Ireland (DHSSPSNI) and administered by Get Well UK. The evaluation was conducted independently by Social & Market Research (SMR).
They encouraged GPs to refer willing patients to go for some free CAM. For example:
Patients with stress, depression or anxiety were referred to a homeopath for a full assessment and monthly treatments or to an acupuncturist who would typically offer weekly treatments. If appropriate, homeopaths and acupuncturists were also able to refer patients for supporting ‘complementary’ treatments such as aromatherapy, massage or reflexology.
So it was funded by the government but Healthcare Republic comment:
The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health was closely involved in setting up the trial, which was implemented by Get Well UK, a not-for-profit supplier of complementary healthcare.
Hmm. The report is littered with dozens of statistics but most of them are utterly useless in any genuine scientific context. There are acres of these with most patients reporting improvements in their symptoms. They all sound impressive but they are almost completely useless in isolation. They did ask for the GP opinion on their patients’ health but these are scarcely objective measures with no account taken for selection bias, placebo effect, regression to the mean, natural waxing and waning of disease etc etc. The report is also liberally sprinkled with quotes from the focus groups. There is no evidence that these have been subjected to any of the recognised methods of qualitative analysis.
At least some GPs were pointing out the obvious.
One of the Belfast GPs had strong views about the cost of this CAM pilot project; ‘for £200,000 we could have 4 additional physios and cleared our physio waiting list’, ‘the therapies weren’t a cheap option…they cost £200,000…..half of it is going on management and admin too’.
People like CAM. People also like playing chess, baking cakes, having a cup of tea, watching televsion, knitting and having their friends sit and listen to their problems. These are all leisure activities that bring people a sense of wellbeing. CAM is a leisure activity; something that people are at liberty to enjoy but not one that the NHS should fund without some half-decent evidence.
This pilot should not be regarded, in any shape or form, as science. It is a collection of dubious surveys with a clear purpose – to provide CAM with a wafer-thin veneer of credibility with a sprinkling of magic science dust. It should not be used to determine healthcare policy.
Sense at last on integrated health
“Dr Michael Dixon, the foundation’s medical director, said: ‘Patients have clearly benefited – and so has the health service. “
You can read his comments here at the The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health.
Sense at last? Absolute dribbling nonsense.
Oh, honestly! That kind of ‘study’ really makes one want to spit.
I should highlight the pisspoor Pulse article that was brought to my attention by jdc325′s post.
And Le Canard Noir has passed comment over at The Quackometer.