A preliminary report from an online survey
Homeopathy is a modality widely used around the world, and utilised by both home prescribers and other allied and complementary health professionals, as well as Homeopaths. While there is anecdotal evidence of this use, there is little data about the actual prescribing and use of homeopathy by other health professionals. A pilot study of complementary medicine use showed that Naturopaths, Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners, Herbalists, Acupuncturists, and Integrative Medicine Doctors all prescribed homeopathic remedies (Lee et al 2025). Furthermore, an Australian literature review highlights that homeopathy is one modality recommended by midwives for women in pregnancy, labour and birth (Hall et al. 2012). Despite this, there is no published literature of how these practitioners prescribe homeopathy, or their knowledge of homeopathic principles.
This survey was designed to gather further information, not just about whether allied and complementary health practitioners prescribe homeopathy, but also about knowledge of homeopathy, and what types of remedies and conditions they prescribe for. Allied and complementary health practitioners include Chiropractors, Osteopaths, Naturopaths, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners, Acupuncturists, Medical Herbalists, Kinesiologists, and any other person working professionally to support clients with their health. This does not include Medical Doctors, Registered Nurses (except where they are practicing a complementary health profession), Midwives or Pharmacists.
Method:
Ethics approval for the study was obtained through the Aotearoa Research Ethics Committee (AREC 25_41). A short, 10-15 minute survey was administered through Survey Planet Pro plan.
The study information was sent to the Chinese Medicine Council of New Zealand, Osteopathic Council of New Zealand, New Zealand Chiropractic Board, Kinesiology Association of New Zealand (KANZ), Naturopaths and Medical Herbalists NZ (NMHNZ), and the New Zealand Association of Medical Herbalists (NZAMH). It was also shared through social media, and Homeopaths were encouraged to send it out to any allied health colleagues they knew who prescribe homeopathy. There was a disappointing response from the regulatory boards. The Chinese Medicine Council was the only one who sent this out directly to their members; the Osteopathic Council and Kinesiology Association did not reply to any communication, and the Chiropractic Board stated sharing research with their members is outside of their scope. NMHNZ and NZAMH did eventually share this, but it did require requests from others as well. As there was such a poor response, the survey was directly sent to approximately 300 Chiropractic, Osteopathic, Naturopathic and Kinesiology practices, found on google.
Results:
This is a preliminary report, summarising the answers for each question. There will be a more in depth analysis done, which will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There were 75 responses to the survey, 3 were not Health Professionals, and 4 were qualified Homeopaths – while some of the preliminary data includes answers from these Homeopaths, this will be excluded from the final analysis, so the numbers below may well change.
Of those completing the survey, 41.7% were Naturopaths, 30.6% Medical Herbalists, 22.2% Chiropractors, 19.4% Osteopaths and 12.5% Acupuncturists. Practitioners could select more than one modality, and other professions include Craniosacral Therapy, Kinesiology, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Rongoā Māori.
The age of practitioners ranged from 23 through to 79 years, and they were predominantly NZ European (68.8%). Practitioners were predominantly North Island based, with 38.9% in Auckland, and 13.9% in Wellington, 12.5% in Canterbury, and only 22.2% in the whole South Island.
52.9% of practitioners had used Homeopathy in their practice, with a range of use of homeopathy (either personally or professionally) from less than a year to 46-50 years.
The majority of practitioners using Homeopathy learnt about homeopathy as part of their Naturopathy or Complementary Medicine qualification (27.2%). Others were self-taught, (21.8%), had no training in homeopathy (18.2%), or had completed a short course (12.7%). There were 4 respondents who had completed the Acute Prescribing in Homeopathy Diploma (7.3%), two with a Homeobotanicals certificate, and others who learnt from colleagues or family.
There was reasonable understanding of principles of homeopathy – 78% aware of the Law of Similars, 67.8% of the Minimum Dose, 55.9% of the Single Remedy, and 45.8% of the Totality of Symptoms. 16.9% were not aware of any of these principles.
Most practitioners prescribe therapeutically, considering the condition and comparing several remedies for that condition (49.2%). Other significant methods of prescribing include Kinesiology or muscle testing (32.2%), according to homeopathic principles looking at the totality (30.5%) and condition specific prescribing (i.e. this remedy is for that particular condition) (22%).
Most practitioners used a range of homeopathically prepared remedies, from single remedy, single potency (i.e. Arnica 30c) (59.3%), tissue salts (39%), homotoxicology remedies (i.e. Heel) (37.6%), homeobotanicals (35.6%), topical remedies (33.9%) and combination remedies (i.e. Naturopharm Accident Relief Spray) (33.9%), Anthroposophical remedies (Weleda Echinacea/Thuja comp) (23.7%), single remedy homachord (16.9%) or combining their own remedies (15.3%). Only one practitioner used a radionics machine to prepare a combination remedy.
Similarly, some practitioners used more than one reference, including Material Medica books (44.1%), Therapeutics books (35.6%), Repertory (35.6%), and a computer, tablet or phone app (33.9%). Two practitioners (3.4%) stated they used artificial intelligence to prescribe remedies.
Practitioners most frequently prescribed homeopathic remedies for recent injuries (78%), and acute, self-limiting conditions (61.0%). However, practitioners also used homeopathic remedies for long term or chronic conditions (47.5%), recurrent acute conditions (35.6%) and detoxing from chemicals or toxins (27.1%).
Low centesimal scale (up to 200c) was most frequently prescribed (45.8%), followed by decimal scale (including tissue salts) (40.7%). 20.3% of practitioners prescribed higher centesimal scale remedies and 10.2% used LM potencies.
11.1% of practitioners used homeopathy most or every day they practice, and 18.1% use homeopathy weekly. 19.4% of practitioners used homeopathy monthly, and 18.1% used homeopathy less often than monthly. One third (24) of the 72 practitioners never used homeopathy in practice.
Some practitioners had close ties with a homeopath, with 23.6% working regularly with a Homeopath, and 48.6% referring to a Homeopath occasionally. 8.3% of practitioners had never previously referred to a Homeopath but would in future, and 19.4% had never referred to a Homeopath.
There were also a number of practitioners who requested further information on homeopathy and information about how to contact Homeopaths in their area.
Discussion
This survey confirms both the anecdotal evidence of use, as well as that from the 2025 pilot study, that other health professionals do use and prescribe homeopathy.
As a Homeopath, there are a few areas of concern from this preliminary analysis. This includes the use of homeopathy for recurrent acute conditions and for long term or chronic conditions. Homeopathy is a modality with a potential for long term improvement in health, however if used repeatedly to treat a recurring acute condition there is a risk of suppression, similar to what we can see with allopathic medicine.
It was reassuring to see some understanding of the principles of homeopathy, however with 22% of practitioners still prescribing specifically for a condition instead of differentiating between different remedies, there is still a way to go.
While only two practitioners state they use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to prescribe remedies, this is likely to increase with the increasing availability of generative AI in the community. A retrospective study comparing prescriptions from cases from a live teaching clinic to an online AI remedy finder found significant differences and challenges for the user, who still needed homeopathic knowledge to differentiate between the responses and make decisions on potency and frequency of administration (Doherty et al. 2025). While technology will improve, an understanding of homeopathy, and when to refer, will still be essential.
This study highlights a lack of continuing education in homeopathy for existing health practitioners. While our two New Zealand homeopathy colleges offer training to become a professional homeopath, there is no local education available for naturopaths, chiropractors, osteopaths or similar who have a practice and would like to learn more about homeopathy to augment their practice. Any training course in this would highlight the scope of practice and when referral is needed to a qualified homeopath for recurring acute conditions or long term conditions. There is one course available through the Academy of Homeopathic Education in the US, however this is for vocationally registered health practitioners in the US, and may not be available for NZ based professionals, particularly Naturopaths who voluntarily register in New Zealand and are not Naturopathic Doctors like in the US.
Furthermore, there are opportunities for stakeholders to engage more with other regulatory boards, and build links between the professions to better support our clients.
Conclusion
There is more work to be done here, both in analysing the data from this study, as well as further research into the use of homeopathy by other health professionals. This could include further focused research on particular health professions, engagement with other regulatory boards, as well as looking at Medical Doctors, Midwives, Pharmacists and Nurses for their understanding and use of homeopathy.
References:
Doherty, R., Pracjek, P., Luketic, C. D., Straiges, D., & Gray, A. C. (2025). The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Acute Prescribing in Homeopathy: A Comparative Retrospective Study. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 13(15), 1923. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151923
Hall, H. G., McKenna, L. G., & Griffiths, D. L. (2012). Midwives’ support for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A literature review. Women and Birth, 25(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2010.12.005
Lee, E. L., Harrison, J., & Barnes, J. (2025). Prevalence and Patterns of Use of Natural Health Products and Medicines in New Zealand: A Pilot Study Using an Online Market Research Panel. Drugs – Real World Outcomes, 12(2), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-025-00482-1
