What can be done to dissuade proponents of homeopathy?

In this article, two German researchers investigated the persuasions of homeopathy users:

(a) whether and how homeopathy should be used to treat serious conditions like cancer,

(b) the role of science and the relevance of scientific evidence regarding homeopathy.

Using latent profile analysis (N = 225), they identified subgroups of homeopathy users that differ in their normative beliefs about the use of homeopathy in serious conditions:

• supporters of standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions (~9%),
• people who are open toward standalone use (~43%),
• supporters of supplementary use (~35%),
• supporters of both supplementary use and non-use in serious conditions (~13%).

The findings indicate that subgroups that supported or were open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions held the most negative attitudes toward science.

The authors concluded that despite being a minority in our sample, homeopathy users that support the standalone use of homeopathy to treat serious conditions like cancer clearly exist. These individuals are at risk of harming their own (and others’) health. In combination with the large subgroup of undecided users that emerged in our sample, these findings highlight the need for interventions aimed at preventing harmful homeopathy use. Most likely, before factual communication of scientific evidence can have a persuasive effect, negative attitudes toward science among homeopathy users need to be targeted.

The authors pont out that their findings highlight the need for interventions aimed at preventing the use of homeopathy in the treatment of serious conditions. Such interventions could take place at both a structural (e.g. legal restrictions or stricter sanctions for practitioners that conduct or allow such treatments, better financing of evidence-based medicine so that doctors have more time for their patients) and individual level (e.g. educational efforts targeting homeopathy users). Regarding the latter, it needs to be kept in mind that both subgroups most in need of interventions (i.e. the subgroups supporting or being open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions) indicated the most negative attitudes toward science: They cared the least about scientific evidence regarding homeopathy and perceived science to be the most corrupt and limited. Given these characteristics, simply informing members of these subgroups about the scientific consensus regarding homeopathy—as is typically recommended in the psychological literature to address beliefs in conflict with scientific evidence —might not be an effective strategy. Instead, interventions might first have to create a shared understanding of the importance and value of scientific evidence and evidence-based treatments. This might entail, for example, a more foundational education about how the scientific method works, and why it is superior to, for example, relying on personal experiences and observations in making causal judgments.

WISE WORDS INDEED!