Comparison of physical therapy with energy healing for improving range of motion in subjects with restricted shoulder mobility

Biofield Therapies Clinical Research Landscape: A Scoping Review and Interactive Evidence Map

Background: Biofield Therapies, with a historical lineage spanning millennia and continuing relevance in contemporary practices, have been used to address various health conditions and promote wellbeing. The scientific study and adoption of these therapies have been hindered by cultural challenges and institutional barriers. In addition, the current research landscape for Biofield Therapies is insufficiently documented. Objectives: This scoping review aims to comprehensively document the peer-reviewed research landscape of Biofield Therapies. Furthermore, an online searchable and dynamic Evidence Map was created to serve as a publicly accessible tool for querying the evidence base, pinpointing research gaps, and identifying areas requiring further exploration. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases was conducted from inception through January 2024. Peer-reviewed interventional studies in English involving human participants receiving Biofield Therapy were included. Data on study design, population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, citation details, and direction of results reported were extracted and synthesized into two summary tables and three data tables. Results: In total, 353 studies in 352 published reports were included: 255 randomized controlled trials, 36 controlled clinical trials, and 62 pre-post study designs. Named biofield interventions included Reiki (n = 88), Therapeutic Touch (n = 71), Healing Touch (n = 31), intercessory prayer (n = 21), External Qigong (n = 16), Spiritual Healing/Spiritual Passé/Laying-on-of-hands (n = 14), "distant or remote healing" (n = 10), and Gentle Human Touch/Yakson Therapeutic Touch (n = 9). Also included were 56 studies in 55 reports involving bespoke, unknown, or other interventions, 20 studies involving multimodal interventions, and 17 studies involving multiple biofield interventions. Studies encompassed a wide variety of populations, most commonly healthy volunteers (n = 67), pain (n = 55), and cancer (n = 46). As reported in the Abstracts, nearly half of the studies (n = 172) reported positive results in favor of the Biofield Therapy for all outcomes being investigated, 95 reported mixed results, 71 reported nonsignificant results, 3 reported negative results, and 12 studies did not report the direction of results. Conclusions: Despite rising interest in Biofield Therapies among researchers, practitioners, and patients, the integration of these interventions into allopathic medical systems is hindered by challenges in researching these therapies and inconsistent reporting. These issues contribute to inconclusive findings, which limit our understanding of the efficacy of Biofield Therapies for specific conditions. The resulting scoping review and interactive Evidence Map aim to empower stakeholders to overcome these obstacles, thereby strengthening the evidence for the potential adoption of Biofield Therapies as future integrative care options in allopathic medicine.

Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials

Highlights Guidelines have been created to improve the reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies, e.g. External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch. Appropriate use of these guidelines is likely to strengthen the evidence base for biofield therapies as well as increase their usage as stand-alone practices and as complementary therapies within mainstream healthcare.

Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, eg, External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

Client experiences of virtual energy healing

CONTEXT

During the COVID-19 pandemic medical and holistic health practitioners turned to utilizing virtual healthcare. As energy healing practitioners and educators who shifted to an online format, it seemed important to document descriptions of client experiences of virtual energy healing.

OBJECTIVE

To describe client experiences of virtual energy healing sessions.

DESIGN

Descriptive pre-post intervention design.

SETTING AND INTERVENTIONS

Two experienced and eclectic energy healing practitioners developed a protocol and conducted energy healing sessions via Zoom.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (CSJ) Consociates, people of diverse life-styles and spiritual traditions who are committed to living the mission of the CSJs in the St. Paul Province.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre-post 10-point Likert scale rating of relaxation, well-being, and pain. Pre-post primarily qualitative questionnaires.

RESULTS

Results indicated significant pre-post differences: pre-session relaxation (M=5.036, SD = 2.9) and post-session relaxation (M=7.86, SD = 6.4): t(13)=2.16, p=.0017*; pre-session well-being (M=5.86, SD = 4.29); post-session well-being (M=8, SD = 2.31), t(13), p=.0001*; pre-session pain (M=4.0, SD = 6.15) and post-session pain (M=2.25, SD = 3.41), t(13)=2.16, p=.004*. Thematic analysis revealed six themes related to client experiences of virtual energy healing: 1) embodied sensations, 2) relaxation, 3) release - a letting go of tasks/anxieties/worries, 4) sense of peace/joy/calm, 5) connection to themselves, others, and something larger, and 6) surprise that virtual energy healing works.

LIMITATIONS

This was a descriptive study using a convenience sample, therefore, there was not a control group, a large sample size, and the sample might be more prone to report better results than the general population because of their spiritual perspectives. Results were not generalizable.

IMPLICATIONS

Clients reported positive descriptions of virtual energy healing and say they would do it again. However more research is needed to understand the variables that influenced the results and the underlying mechanisms of action.

Does Reiki Benefit Mental Health Symptoms Above Placebo?

Background

Reiki is an energy healing technique or biofield therapy in which an attuned therapist places their hands on or near the client's body and sends energy to the client to activate the body's ability to heal itself and restore balance. It was developed in Japan at the end of the 19th century by Mikao Usui of Kyoto. Given the enormous international socioeconomic burden of mental health, inexpensive, safe, and evidenced-based treatments would be welcomed. Reiki is safe, inexpensive, and preliminary research suggests it may assist in treating a wide variety of illnesses. Given that Reiki is a biofield therapy, growing in use, and not yet accepted by the dominant biomedical paradigm, it is important to establish its effectiveness over placebo. This study aimed to examine Reiki's effectiveness over placebo in treating symptoms of mental health and to explore parameters for its effectiveness.

Method

A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) examining Reiki's effectiveness in treating symptoms of mental health in adults was conducted through a systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Revised ROB 2 assessment tool. This was followed by a grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) assessment.

Results

The evidence to date suggests that Reiki consistently demonstrates a greater therapeutic effect over placebo for some symptoms of mental health. The GRADE level of evidence is high for clinically relevant levels of stress and depression, moderate to high for clinically relevant levels of anxiety, low to moderate for normal levels of stress, and low to moderate for burnout, and low for normal levels of depression and anxiety.

Conclusion

The results suggest that, Reiki may be more effective in treating some areas of mental health, than placebo, particularly if symptoms are clinically relevant. To date, there are a small number of studies in each area, therefore findings are inconclusive and, more RCTs controlling for placebo in Reiki research are needed. Most included studies were also assessed as having a risk of bias of some concern. Incorporating Reiki as a complementary treatment to mainstream psychotherapy for depression, stress, and anxiety may be appropriate.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/], identifier [CRD42020194311].

Effects of Reiki Versus Physiotherapy on Relieving Lower Back Pain and Improving Activities Daily Living of Patients With Intervertebral Disc Hernia

Patients with intervertebral disc herniation (IVDH) seek complementary and conventional medical therapies to manage related problems. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Reiki compared with physiotherapy to relieve the lower back pain intensity and to improve the activities of daily living (ADL) in the IDVH patients. In this clinical trial study, 60 patients with IVDH were randomly assigned to one of the Reiki, physiotherapy, and drug therapy groups. The severity of pain and the ADL were measured using visual analog scale (VAS) pain and ADL–Instrumental ADL questionnaire before and after the intervention. A significant difference was found in pain intensity and ADL improvement between Reiki and the drug therapy. However, there was no significant difference between Reiki and physiotherapy groups in managing pain and improving ADL. Reiki and physiotherapy are effective methods in managing pain and improving ADL in patients with IVDH; however, Reiki is more cost-effective and faster treatment method than physiotherapy.

An Integrative Review of Scientific Evidence for Reconnective Healing

Background: Biofield therapies offer a novel, non-invasive approach to treating chronic diseases based on assessing and adjusting an individual's physiological and emotional responses through their bio-energetic field. Reconnective Healing^™ (RH) is defined as: “…not just energy healing, but instead a more comprehensive spectrum of healing composed of energy, light, and information.”

Objectives: Several biofield therapies, such as Reiki, Therapeutic Touch and Johrei, have already been reviewed in the literature but RH has received little attention even though it is taught and practiced worldwide. This review provides a critical assessment of RH as a healing modality.

Methods: Scientific research articles published in peer-reviewed journals addressing RH were identified using relevant databases and archives. Information was extracted from each article that met selection criteria for evaluation of quality of reporting and design. This review summarizes and critically evaluates the five currently published peer-reviewed research papers involving RH and assesses whether RH provides consistent physiological outcomes between the studies.

Results: These results, taken together, suggest: (i) exposure of a healer or healee to RH, either directly or indirectly, amplifies their degree of autonomic arousal and energy, (ii) RH can reduce pain and improve range of motion in people with shoulder limitations, and (iii) when individuals experience RH as a group, their autonomic nervous systems simultaneously show sudden similar responses consistent with the idea that RH is mitigated by entrainment of biofields.

Conclusions: Since these studies are extremely varied in design it is not possible at this point to reach conclusions about the general effectiveness of RH. More clinical and physiological research performed on different populations under a range of conditions is needed in order to support this healthcare approach.

Feasibility of energy medicine in a community teaching hospital: an exploratory case series

Background: Energy medicine (EM) derives from the theory that a subtle biologic energy can be influenced for therapeutic effect. EM practitioners may be trained within a specific tradition or work solo. Few studies have investigated the feasibility of solo-practitioner EM in hospitals.

Objective: This study investigated the feasibility of EM as provided by a solo practitioner in inpatient and emergent settings.

Design: Feasibility study, including a prospective case series.

Settings: Inpatient units and emergency department.

Outcome measures: To investigate the feasibility of EM, acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality were assessed. Short-term clinical changes were documented by treating physicians.

Participants: Patients, employees, and family members were enrolled in the study only if study physicians expected no or slow improvement in specific symptoms. Those with secondary gains or who could not communicate perception of symptom change were excluded.

Results: EM was found to have acceptability and demand, and implementation was smooth because study procedures dovetailed with conventional clinical practice. Practicality was acceptable within the study but was low upon further application of EM because of cost of program administration. Twenty-four of 32 patients requested relief from pain. Of 50 reports of pain, 5 (10%) showed no improvement; 4 (8%), slight improvement; 3 (6%), moderate improvement; and 38 (76%), marked improvement. Twenty-one patients had issues other than pain. Of 29 non–pain-related problems, 3 (10%) showed no, 2 (7%) showed slight, 1 (4%) showed moderate, and 23 (79%) showed marked improvement. Changes during EM sessions were usually immediate.

Conclusions: This study successfully implemented EM provided by a solo practitioner in inpatient and emergent hospital settings and found that acceptability and demand justified its presence. Most patients experienced marked, immediate improvement of symptoms associated with their chief complaint. Substantial practicality issues must be addressed to implement EM clinically in a hospital, however.