Attitudes to evidence on complementary medicine: the perspective of British healthcare purchasers

To determine the attitude of those who make decisions on the allocation of health-care resources (health-care purchasers/commissioners) towards the relative importance of different types of evidence on complementary medicine.

Questionnaire study of GPs and Directors of Public Health.

General practices in the UK and Directors of Public Health of Health Authorities in the Greater London region.

500 randomly selected general practices in 10 randomly selected UK regions, 100 randomly selected general practices who had previously referred to the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital and all 28 directors of public health of health authorities in the Greater London region.

Importance of the following on a four point scale ranging from 0 (not important) to 3 (very important): randomized clinical trials, audit outcome data from homoeopathic hospitals, uncontrolled outcome studies, patient satisfaction, patient demand, economic evaluation, colleagues' views, expert opinion, theoretical understanding, laboratory research, safety and availability of literature.

462 general practitioners and 19 Directors of Health Authorities responded. Safety data and randomised clinical trials were considered very important, colleagues' views and patient demand as slightly important, uncontrolled outcome studies as not important. The remaining aspects were considered to be important. Differences between the categories of respondents were small.

While randomized clinical trials remain very important, more emphasis should be placed on further substantiating the safety and value for money of complementary medicine in 'real world' clinical settings.