Abstract
M.Tech.
As computers become more common in the work environment, more people are developing
symptoms linked to long-term computer use. These include visual and eye-related symptoms as
well as musculo-skeletal symptoms (Sheedy & Shaw-McMinn, 2003; Yan, Hu, Chen & Lu, 2007).
This collection of symptoms is known as Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS). There are various
allopathic modes of treatment available which are limited in terms of their long term use and side
effects. Yan and colleagues (2007) indicate that a correctly designed, ergonomically efficient work
place plays a significant role in limiting the development of CVS symptoms. Depending on the
reasons for CVS and the symptoms associated with it, alternative treatment options may be
appropriate (Yan, et al., 2007). Homoeopathy offers alternate treatment, however no extensive
research has been done on the homoeopathic treatment of this condition.
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of the homoeopathic remedy Ruta graveolens
6cH together with ergonomic interventions in the work environment in the treatment of Computer
Vision Syndrome. This was done by means of a selection questionnaire (APPENDIX B) and a
symptom index form (APPENDIX C), rating the severity and frequency of symptoms.
This research study is paired to a related study which investigated the efficacy of Ruta graveolens
6cH without ergonomic interventions. These two studies can later be compared to determine
whether the remedy Ruta graveolens 6cH by itself is sufficient in treating computer vision
syndrome.
This study was approved by the Higher Degrees Committee (HDC48/2009) and the Academic
Ethics Committee (AEC50/09) at the University of Johannesburg on the 19 June 2009.
Thirty one people joined the study. They were recruited by means of flyers and advertisements
(APPENDIX E) placed at the University of Johannesburg as well as corporate companies.
Participation was voluntary and by means of informed consent (APPENDIX A). Participants were
required to fill in a selection questionnaire (APPENDIX B) to see if they qualified for the study. It
was a double-blind placebo controlled study in which participants were placed into one of 2 groups.
Both groups were required to change the layout of their work environment in order to ensure
ergonomic efficiency at their work station (APPENDIX D). Of the two groups, one was dispensed
vi
the medicated prescription and the other an identically presented unmedicated prescription.
Participants were requested to take the medication twice a day for 4 weeks. They were also required
to complete a symptom index form (APPENDIX C) on a weekly basis. These forms were collected
by the researcher at the end of the four weeks. There was no risk associated with taking the
medication. Participants’ right to privacy was adhered to and they were free to withdraw from the
study at any time. Of the 31 people who joined the study, 29 completed the study.