Spiritual healing as a therapy for chronic pain: a randomized, clinical trial
- 1 March 2001
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Pain
- Vol. 91 (1) , 79-89
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00421-8
Abstract
Spiritual healing is a popular complementary and alternative therapy; in the UK almost 13000 members are registered in nine separate healing organisations. The present randomized clinical trial was designed to investigate the efficacy of healing in the treatment of chronic pain. One hundred and twenty patients suffering from chronic pain, predominantly of neuropathic and nociceptive origin resistant to conventional treatments, were recruited from a Pain Management Clinic. The trial had two parts: face-to-face healing or simulated face-to-face healing for 30 min per week for 8 weeks (part I); and distant healing or no healing for 30 min per week for 8 weeks (part II). The McGill Pain Questionnaire was pre-defined as the primary outcome measure, and sample size was calculated to detect a difference of 8 units on the total pain rating index of this instrument after 8 weeks of healing. VASs for pain, SF36, HAD scale, MYMOP and patient subjective experiences at week 8 were employed as secondary outcome measures. Data from all patients who reached the pre-defined mid-point of 4 weeks (50 subjects in part I and 55 subjects in part II) were included in the analysis. Two baseline measurements of outcome measures were made, 3 weeks apart, and no significant differences were observed between them. After eight sessions there were significant decreases from baseline in McGill Pain Questionnaire total pain rating index score for both groups in part I and for the control group in part II. However, there were no statistically significant differences between healing and control groups in either part. In part I the primary outcome measure decreased from 32.8 (95% CI 28.5-37.0) to 23.3 (16.8-29.7) in the healing group and from 33.1 (27.2-38.9) to 26.1 (19.3-32.9) in the simulated healing group. In part II it changed from 29.6 (24.8-34.4) to 24.0 (18.7-29.4) in the distant healing group and from 31.0 (25.8-36.2) to 21.0 (15.7-26.2) in the no healing group. Subjects in healing groups in both parts I and II reported significantly more 'unusual experiences' during the sessions, but the clinical relevance of this is unclear. It was concluded that a specific effect of face-to-face or distant healing on chronic pain could not be demonstrated over eight treatment sessions in these patients.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”Annals of Internal Medicine, 2000
- Healing as a Therapy for Human Disease: A Systematic ReviewThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2000
- A randomized trial of distant healing for skin wartsThe American Journal of Medicine, 2000
- Acupuncture for Back PainArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1998
- Does ‘healing’ benefit patients with chronic symptoms? A quasi-randomized trial in general practiceJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1998
- The prevalence of pain in a disabled populationSocial Science & Medicine, 1996
- Spiritual healing in a general practice: Using a quality-of-life questionnaire to measure outcomeComplementary Therapies in Medicine, 1995
- Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.BMJ, 1992
- Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit PopulationSouthern Medical Journal, 1988
- Paranormal healing and hypertensionBMJ, 1988