Objectives The objective of this study was to establish the reliability and content validity of the “Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy—Causal Attribution Inventory” as a tool for attributing a causal relationship between the homeopathic intervention and outcome in clinical case reports.
Methods Purposive sampling was adopted for the selection of information-rich case reports using pre-defined criteria. Eligible case reports had to fulfil a minimum of nine items of the CARE Clinical Case Reporting Guideline checklist and a minimum of three of the homeopathic HOM-CASE CARE extension items. The Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy Inventory consists of 10 domains. Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of these domains was determined by calculating the percentage agreement and kappa (κ) values. A κ greater than 0.4, indicating fair agreement between raters, in conjunction with the absence of concerns regarding the face validity, was taken to indicate the validity of a given domain. Each domain was assessed by four raters for the selected case reports.
Results Sixty case reports met the inclusion criteria. Inter-rater agreement/concordance per domain was “perfect” for domains 1 (100%, κ = 1.00) and 2 (100%, κ = 1.00); “almost perfect” for domain 8 (97.5%, κ = 0.86); “substantial” for domains 3 (96.7%, κ = 0.80) and 5 (91.1%, κ = 0.70); “moderate” for domains 4 (83.3%, κ = 0.60), 7 (67.8%, κ = 0.46) and 9 (99.2%, κ = 0.50); and “fair” for domain 10 (56.1%, κ = 0.38). For domains 6A (46.7%, κ = 0.03) and 6B (50.3%, κ = 0.18), there was “slight agreement” only. Thus, the validity of the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy tool was established for each of its domains, except for the two that pertain to direction of cure (domains 6A and 6B).
Conclusion The Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy—Causal Attribution Inventory was identified as a valid tool for assessing the likelihood of a causal relationship between a homeopathic intervention and clinical outcome. Improved wordings for several criteria have been proposed for the assessment tool, under the new acronym “MONARCH”. Further assessment of two MONARCH domains is required.
Background The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a global pandemic in Feb 2020 after it emerged from Wuhan city of China and spread to most of the world. The most common psychological symptoms found during the pandemics are fear, anxiety, loss of sleep, depression, suicidal tendency, etc.
Aim To collect various psychological symptoms, the people are presenting during this type of situations and their proposed homoeopathic treatment.
Methodology A web-based survey was conducted to assess the mental health burden in public during the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and also to explore the potential influencing factors. The data of 314 volunteers were collected and assessed.
Results It was found that the overall proportion of depression and anxiety was 34.4 and 31.21% respectively. About 23.9% of participants had both depression and anxiety. The proportion of depression and anxiety was more in males and age group of 21 to 30 years. Healthcare providers reported more depression and anxiety as compared with other occupations. Among the influencing factors, regular Yoga practice and adequate sleep of 7 hours in the day had good effects in controlling depression and anxiety. Spending time in social media for more than 3 hours a day regularly was also an influencing factor for more depression and anxiety. It was also found that people who frequently got worried about own health and of near and dear ones had developed more anxiety. The participants who had taken homoeopathic medicines during last month reported less depressive symptoms in comparison to others.
Conclusion Homoeopathy has many remedies which can fit into these psychological symptoms as the principle of homoeopathy is based on individualisation which constitutes the physical as well as the mental sphere.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.