Application of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine in small animal medicine-A survey among German veterinary practitioners
Ines Stanossek,Axel Wehrend
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264022
IF: 3.7
2022-02-28
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Background: The international use of and interest in veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine are increasing. There are diverse modes of treatment, and owners seem to be well informed. However, there is a lack of data that describes the state of naturopathic or complementary veterinary medicine in Germany. This study aims to address the issue by mapping the currently used treatment modalities, indications, existing qualifications, and information pathways. In order to map the ongoing controversy, this study records the advantages and disadvantages of these medicines as experienced by veterinarians. Demographic influences are investigated to describe distributional impacts on using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine. Methods: A standardised questionnaire was used for the cross-sectional survey. It was distributed throughout Germany in a written and digital format from September 2016 to January 2018. Because of the open nature of data collection, the return rate of questionnaires could not be calculated. To establish a feasible timeframe, active data collection stopped when the previously calculated limit of 1061 questionnaires was reached. With the included incoming questionnaires of that day a total of 1087 questionnaires were collected. Completely blank questionnaires and those where participants did not meet the inclusion criteria (were not included, leaving 870 out of 1087 questionnaires to be evaluated. A literature review and the first test run of the questionnaire identified the following treatment modalities: homoeopathy, phytotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), biophysical treatments, manual treatments, Bach Flower Remedies, neural therapy, homotoxicology, organotherapy, and hirudotherapy which were included in the questionnaire. Categorical items were processed using descriptive statistics in absolute and relative numbers based on the population of completed answers provided for each item. Multiple choices were possible. Metric data were not normally distributed (Shapiro Wilk Test); hence the median, minimum, and maximum were used for description. The impact of demographic data on the implementation of veterinary naturopathy and complementary techniques was calculated using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test for metric data and the exact Fisher-Test for categorical data. Results: Overall 85.4% (n = 679 of total 795 non-blank data sets) of all the questionnaire participants used naturopathy and complementary medicine. The treatments most commonly used were complex homoeopathy (70.4%, n = 478), phytotherapy (60.2%, n = 409), classic homoeopathy (44.3%, n = 301) and biophysical treatments (40.1%, n = 272). The most common indications were orthopedic (n = 1798), geriatric (n = 1428) and metabolic diseases (n = 1124). Over the last five years, owner demand for naturopathy and complementary treatments was rated as growing by 57.9% of respondents (n = 457 of total 789). Veterinarians most commonly used scientific journals and publications as sources for information about naturopathic and complementary contents (60.8%, n = 479 of total 788). These were followed by advanced training acknowledged by the ATF (Academy for Veterinary Continuing Education, an organisation that certifies independent veterinary continuing education in Germany) (48.6%, n = 383). The current information about naturopathy and complementary medicine was rated as adequate or nearly adequate by a plurality (39.5%, n = 308) of the respondents of this question. Further, 27.7% (n = 216) of participants chose the option that they were not confident to answer this question and 91 answers were left blank. The most commonly named advantages in using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine were the expansion of treatment modalities (73.5%, n = 566 of total 770), customer satisfaction (70.8%, n = 545) and lower side effects (63.2%, n = 487). The ambiguity of studies, as well as the unclear evidence of mode of action and effectiveness (62.1%, n = 483) and high expectations of owners (50.5%, n = 393) were the disadvantages mentioned most frequently. Classic homoeopathy, in particular, has been named in this context (78.4%, n = 333 of total 425). Age, gender, and type of employment showed a statistically significant impact on the use of naturopathy and complementary medicine by veterinarians (p < 0.001). The university of final graduation showed a weaker but still statistically significant impact (p = 0.027). Users of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine tended to be older, female, self-employed and a higher percentage of them completed their studies at the University of Berlin. The working environment (rural or urban space) showed no statistical impact on the veterinary naturopathy or complementary medicine profession. Conclusion: This is the first study to provide German data on the actual use of naturopathy and complementary medicine in small animal science. Despite a potential bias due to voluntary participation, it shows a large number of applications for various indications. Homoeopathy was mentioned most frequently as the treatment option with the most potential disadvantages. However, it is also the most frequently used treatment option in this study. The presented study, despite its restrictions, supports the need for a discussion about evidence, official regulations, and the need for acknowledged qualifications because of the widespread application of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine. More data regarding the effectiveness and the mode of action is needed to enable veterinarians to provide evidence-based advice to pet owners.