A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research

Abstract Aim To synthesize the most recent evidence investigating the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch as a complementary therapy in clinical health applications. Design A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Met...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bernie Garrett, Marliss Riou
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-09-01
Series:Nursing Open
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.841
id doaj-c66851850c9a4291ba2b00de8814ae1c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c66851850c9a4291ba2b00de8814ae1c2021-08-13T22:37:04ZengWileyNursing Open2054-10582021-09-01852318233010.1002/nop2.841A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch researchBernie Garrett0Marliss Riou1School of Nursing University of British Columbia Vancouver BC CanadaSchool of Nursing University of British Columbia Vancouver BC CanadaAbstract Aim To synthesize the most recent evidence investigating the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch as a complementary therapy in clinical health applications. Design A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Methods CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009–March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea and functional improvement. Results Twenty‐one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized‐controlled trials, four quasi‐experimental studies, one chart review study and one mixed methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered and scored as low‐quality studies. No high‐quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.841alternative medicinecomplementary therapiesenergy-healinghuman-biofieldpseudosciencetherapeutic touch
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bernie Garrett
Marliss Riou
spellingShingle Bernie Garrett
Marliss Riou
A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
Nursing Open
alternative medicine
complementary therapies
energy-healing
human-biofield
pseudoscience
therapeutic touch
author_facet Bernie Garrett
Marliss Riou
author_sort Bernie Garrett
title A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
title_short A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
title_full A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
title_fullStr A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
title_full_unstemmed A rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
title_sort rapid evidence assessment of recent therapeutic touch research
publisher Wiley
series Nursing Open
issn 2054-1058
publishDate 2021-09-01
description Abstract Aim To synthesize the most recent evidence investigating the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch as a complementary therapy in clinical health applications. Design A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Methods CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009–March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea and functional improvement. Results Twenty‐one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized‐controlled trials, four quasi‐experimental studies, one chart review study and one mixed methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered and scored as low‐quality studies. No high‐quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.
topic alternative medicine
complementary therapies
energy-healing
human-biofield
pseudoscience
therapeutic touch
url https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.841
work_keys_str_mv AT berniegarrett arapidevidenceassessmentofrecenttherapeutictouchresearch
AT marlissriou arapidevidenceassessmentofrecenttherapeutictouchresearch
AT berniegarrett rapidevidenceassessmentofrecenttherapeutictouchresearch
AT marlissriou rapidevidenceassessmentofrecenttherapeutictouchresearch
_version_ 1721208144062840832