The Effect of Therapeutic Touch on the Comfort and Anxiety of Nursing Home Residents

Impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of long-term care residents: a scoping review

“…Twenty-three (44.2%) of the 52 articles were conducted in the USA (20, 24, 45, 46, 49, 54, 57, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68/69, 71, 74–77, 79, 84–87, 90), four (7.7%) in Australia, 18 22 25 44 three (5.8%) in Turkey, 60 72 73 two (3.8%) in Japan, 50 59 two (3.8%) in Canada, 62 67 two (3.8%) in the Netherlands [53, 88/89], two (3.8%) in Belgium, 43 80 two (3.8%) in Germany 55 70 and one (1.9%) each in England, 42 Ireland, 47 UK, 48 Denmark, 51 Switzerland, 52 Sweden, 56 China, 58 Korea, 64 Portugal, 78 Ireland, 81 Spain 82 and Iran. 83 A variety of study designs were used including: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n=19) (20, 47, 53, 57, 59–63, 65, 67, 71–74, 82, 83, 86, 88/89), non-controlled before and after (n=13), 22 24 42–45 55 64 75 78–80 85 cross-over (n=8), 25 46 48 51 54 58 77 87 non-RCTs (n=3), 49 52 70 cross-sectional (n=3), 76 81 90 case series (n=2), 50 66 mixed methods (n=2) (18, 68/69), controlled before-and-after (n=1) 56 and grounded theory (n=1).…”

“…Twenty-three (44.2%) of the 52 articles were conducted in the USA (20, 24, 45, 46, 49, 54, 57, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68/69, 71, 74-77, 79, 84-87, 90), four (7.7%) in Australia, 18 22 25 44 three (5.8%) in Turkey, 60 72 73 two (3.8%) in Japan, 50 59 two (3.8%) in Canada, 62 67 two (3.8%) in the Netherlands [53, 88/89], two (3.8%) in Belgium, 43 80 two (3.8%)…”

A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research

“…Descriptive statistics indicating the data distribution were not provided in over 90% of the studies. Typically, simple t tests or F test comparisons were used, when the assumptions required to validate the use of these tests were not met (Aghabati et al., 2010 ; Alp & Yucel, 2020 ; Coakley & Duffy, 2010 ; Madrid et al., 2010 ; McCormack, 2009 ; Mueller et al., 2019 ; Yucel et al., 2020 ; Zaeimi et al., 2016 ; Zare et al., 2010 ).…”

“…In many cases, group allocation was performed by the researcher who was also the provider of the TT intervention, and in others, details of sample allocation were not adequately discussed. In several, a significant proportion of the participants were illiterate, and it was unclear how informed consent was obtained (Alp & Yucel, 2020;Marta et al, 2010;Vanaki et al, 2015;Yucel et al, 2020). A-priori power calculation used to justify the sample size was often based on an overestimated effect size.…”

“…Although most used well-standardized assessment tools, most studies made no attempt to report how outcome assessors were blinded from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. In addition, in several studies the researchers or practitioners collected the data (Alp & Yucel, 2020;Marta et al, 2010;Rosales et al, 2009;Senderovich et al, 2016). Likewise, attrition bias was also evident, as it was not described or accounted for in the majority of studies, and some were unclear on when, why or how participants had withdrawn.…”