Abstract:

Background: The concept of susceptibility occupies an important position in the theoretical framework of the Organon of Medicine, particularly in its discussion of individual responses to disease-producing influences. Contemporary Community Medicine, in contrast, conceptualises disease occurrence through epidemiological risk factors, determinants of health, exposures, host characteristics, and social and environmental conditions. Although these frameworks emerged from different intellectual traditions, both emphasise that disease does not occur independently of the characteristics of the individual and the surrounding environment.

Objective: This integrative review examines the conceptual relationship between susceptibility as described in the Organon of Medicine and risk factors and determinants of health in contemporary Community Medicine. It aims to identify areas of conceptual convergence, divergence, and potential relevance for preventive and individualised healthcare.

Methods: A narrative-integrative approach was adopted. Classical homoeopathic literature, particularly Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine, was examined alongside established epidemiological literature and contemporary public-health frameworks addressing risk factors, causation, social determinants, vulnerability, prevention, and population health. The analysis was interpretive and conceptual rather than a systematic assessment of clinical efficacy.

Results: The review identifies several areas of conceptual overlap, including recognition of individual variation, host characteristics, environmental influences, behavioural conditions, and interactions between person and environment. However, important differences remain. Homoeopathic susceptibility is primarily a theoretical construct within an individualized therapeutic system, whereas epidemiological risk is an empirically measurable probabilistic construct supported by population-level evidence. Contemporary public health further extends risk analysis to social, economic, environmental, commercial, and structural determinants. Consequently, susceptibility should not be regarded as synonymous with epidemiological risk.

Conclusion: A carefully bounded conceptual dialogue between the two frameworks may enrich discussions of individualized assessment and preventive health. The most defensible integration is not to equate homoeopathic susceptibility with epidemiological risk, but to examine how individual predisposition, exposure, vulnerability, and population-level determinants can be considered within a multidimensional model of health and disease. Future research should operationalize susceptibility-related concepts and examine whether they demonstrate measurable associations with validated epidemiological outcomes.

Keywords:

susceptibility, Organon of Medicine, homoeopathy, risk factors, epidemiology, Community Medicine, determinants of health, vulnerability, preventive medicine, individualised healthcare.

Aim/Objectives

Methods