This is really impressive, Shannon, I couldn't claim that 90% of my patients even come back for a second appointment!
I would question the 50% placebo response, though. I thought it was closer to 20%, but may be wrong.
Theresa
Shannon wrote
So if I take my *patients* as a group (rather than my total number of
prescriptions), the ratio is quite a lot better--maybe more like 90%?
Maybe this is part of the problem; when you give a drug, it either
works or doesn't (with or without side-effects). But when you are
prescribing a remedy--or even, for a doctor, looking for an
"appropriate" drug--it's not a one-shot deal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
scientific studies
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: scientific studies
Well it gets less impressive when you consider that they're all friends
and family, so they're "captive audiences", I don't lose touch, and
there's no payment involved. They're very patient with me
,
and now and then I make it worth their while. The "over-familiarity"
of treating friends and family has definite drawbacks (very definite!),
but it does give me "inside knowledge" too--things that would probably
never come out in casetaking, but are helpful to finding the remedy.
And (thinking...) at least several have taken me *years* to come to the
remedy(s) that really moved things along--I hasten to add that doesn't
mean years of steady effort, it means years of me taking the case and
prescribing, getting nowhere much, then learning more, going back to
them and saying hey, let's try again! And that's part of what made me
wonder where the 50% figure came from and what it really means...
Once I start a "real" practice I will have to think long and hard about
how to keep people with me as I continue clawing my way up the learning
curve, LOL!
Now someone is going to say that the long time-frame means they might
have just "gotten over" it, so it's sort of like placebo. My response
will be--No Way! (Details if needed, but not that interesting.)
But--if they're not coming back for a second appointment, that makes it
hard for you to know what's happened, doesn't it? Some people make a
single combined charge for the first and second appointments to make
*sure* they get at least that one follow-up. I like that idea!
Shannon
and family, so they're "captive audiences", I don't lose touch, and
there's no payment involved. They're very patient with me
, and now and then I make it worth their while. The "over-familiarity"
of treating friends and family has definite drawbacks (very definite!),
but it does give me "inside knowledge" too--things that would probably
never come out in casetaking, but are helpful to finding the remedy.
And (thinking...) at least several have taken me *years* to come to the
remedy(s) that really moved things along--I hasten to add that doesn't
mean years of steady effort, it means years of me taking the case and
prescribing, getting nowhere much, then learning more, going back to
them and saying hey, let's try again! And that's part of what made me
wonder where the 50% figure came from and what it really means...
Once I start a "real" practice I will have to think long and hard about
how to keep people with me as I continue clawing my way up the learning
curve, LOL!
Now someone is going to say that the long time-frame means they might
have just "gotten over" it, so it's sort of like placebo. My response
will be--No Way! (Details if needed, but not that interesting.)
But--if they're not coming back for a second appointment, that makes it
hard for you to know what's happened, doesn't it? Some people make a
single combined charge for the first and second appointments to make
*sure* they get at least that one follow-up. I like that idea!
Shannon