Positive Health Online

Abstract

ASTIN, HARKNESS and ERNST, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. jastin@compmed.ummc.umaryland.edu conducted a systematic review (52 references) of the efficacy of any form of distant healing as treatment for any medical condition.

Background

Methodology

Studies of prayer, mental healing, Therapeutic Touch, or spiritual healing were identified by a search of MEDLINE, Psychlitt, EMBASE, CISCOM and Cochrane electronic databases from their inception to the end of 1999 and by contact with researchers in the field. Studies with the following features were included: random assignment, placebo or other adequate control, publication in peer-reviewed journals, clinical investigations, and use of human participants. Two investigators independently extracted data on study design, sample size, type of intervention, type of control, direction of effect and nature of the outcomes. A total of 23 trials involving 2774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. Heterogeneity of the studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. Of the trials, 5 examined prayer as the distant healing intervention, 11 assessed non-contact Therapeutic Touch, and 7 examined other forms of distant healing.

Results

Of the 23 studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects, 9 showed no effect over control interventions, and 1 showed a negative effect.

Conclusion

The methodological limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.

References

Astin JA et al. The efficacy of "distant healing": a systematic review of randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 132(11): 903-10. Jun 2000.