It's good to know: How treatment knowledge and belief affect the outcome of distant healing intentionality for arthritis sufferers

Abstract

Improvements in reported pain and well-being appear to have been caused by knowledge of allocation in the distant healing condition rather than distant healing alone.

Is energy healing an effective non-pharmacological therapy for improving symptom management of chronic illnesses? A systematic review

“…Seven energy healing studies adequately assessed for belief or expectancy effects [12,34,35,38,39,42,46]. In two energy healing studies, participants were divided into two groups whereby one group were informed they would receive energy healing at a distance whilst the other group remained blinded to treatment condition [42,46].…”

“…In two energy healing studies, participants were divided into two groups whereby one group were informed they would receive energy healing at a distance whilst the other group remained blinded to treatment condition [42,46]. Treatment outcomes were then compared among participants allocated to distant healing groups who were expecting to receive healing compared to those who remained blinded.…”

“…Expectation of receiving distance healing was significantly associated with positive outcomes for adults with a diagnosed chronic illness or chronic fatigue syndrome [52]; and was partially supported (by small to moderate clinically significant effect sizes) in one study for adults with arthritis [46]. The Goldman Shore [39] RCT found that distance healing was not significantly associated with positive outcomes among adults with depression or other chronic illnesses.…”

“…[12]. Belief in the effectiveness of healing was not significantly associated with positive outcomes for adults with chronic pain or arthritis [34,46]. Health related quality of life was not significantly associated with belief in group allocation in one study [38].…”

“…Three energy healing studies had a low risk of bias [13,52,53], whilst an unclear risk of bias was found in two studies due to unclear randomisation procedures [39] and allocation procedures [39,46]. The remaining studies contained a high risk of bias sufficient to weaken the plausibility of results due to an inability to blind the energy healing practitioner (n=22); no allocation concealment procedures (n=2); lack of blinding of outcome assessors for patient reported outcomes (n=3); incomplete outcome data for short term outcomes (2-6 weeks) (n=3); or long term outcomes (>6 weeks) (n=2); or selective reporting (n=1) [26].…”