English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background COVID-19 quickly became a serious public health problem worldwide, with serious economic and social repercussions. Homeopaths around the world have been studying to find a genus epidemicus (GE) medicine that might help in the prevention and treatment of this disease.  Objective To compare the incidence of COVID-19 between employees who received or did not receive a homeopathic GE medicine for disease prevention.  Methods Retrospective cohort analysis. The study population comprised all employees of a service sector company in São Paulo, Brazil, and followed up by the corporate Occupational Health department. Intervention consisted of administering Arsenicum album 30cH in a one-weekly dose. Primary outcome was incidence of COVID-19 during 3-months' follow-up (April to July, 2020).  Results We analyzed 1,642 of 1,703 employees without previous diagnosis of COVID-19 at onset of the study period: 53.34% of employees were referred to telework at home and did not receive intervention (Group 1, G1); 24.66% remained working on-premises in the state of São Paulo and received the intervention (Group 2, G2); 21.98% remained working on company premises in other states and did not receive intervention (Group 3, G3). Incidence rate of COVID-19 was respectively 13.35%, 0.74%, and 67.87% (p &lt; 0.001). The odds ratio of being infected in (1) G3 versus G1 was 13.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.21 to 18.39), (2) G3 versus G2 was 283.02 (95% CI, 88.98 to 900.18), and (3) G1 versus G2 was 20.66 (95% CI, 6.53 to 65.39).  Limitations The present is a retrospective analysis of a real-world experience. We could not ensure direct observed treatment, and neither could we control adherence to general prevention measures outside company premises.  Conclusion The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly lower amongst on-premises employees who received the GE medication in comparison to workers who did not receive the intervention (those either at other company premises or teleworking at home).

Homeopathy for COVID-19 Prevention: Report of an Intervention at a Brazilian Service Sector Company