Author: Rosa L//Rosa E//Sarner L//Barrett S
Affiliation:
Questionable Nurse Practices Task Force, National Council Against Health Fraud Inc, Loveland, Colo, USA
Conference/Journal: JAMA
Date published: 1998
Other:
Volume ID: 279 , Issue ID: 13 , Pages: 1005-10 , Special Notes: Comments in:
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1905-6; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1905; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1905; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1905; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1906-7; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1906; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1906; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1906; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1907-8.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1907; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1907; discussion 1908.
* JAMA. 1998 Dec 9;280(22):1907; discussion 1908. , Word Count: 270
CONTEXT: Therapeutic Touch (TT) is a widely used nursing practice rooted in mysticism but alleged to have a scientific basis. Practitioners of TT claim to treat many medical conditions by using their hands to manipulate a 'human energy field' perceptible above the patient's skin. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether TT practitioners can actually perceive a 'human energy field.' DESIGN: Twenty-one practitioners with TT experience for from 1 to 27 years were tested under blinded conditions to determine whether they could correctly identify which of their hands was closest to the investigator's hand. Placement of the investigator's hand was determined by flipping a coin. Fourteen practitioners were tested 10 times each, and 7 practitioners were tested 20 times each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Practitioners of TT were asked to state whether the investigator's unseen hand hovered above their right hand or their left hand. To show the validity of TT theory, the practitioners should have been able to locate the investigator's hand 100% of the time. A score of 50% would be expected through chance alone. RESULTS: Practitioners of TT identified the correct hand in only 123 (44%) of 280 trials, which is close to what would be expected for random chance. There was no significant correlation between the practitioner's score and length of experience (r=0.23). The statistical power of this experiment was sufficient to conclude that if TT practitioners could reliably detect a human energy field, the study would have demonstrated this. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigator's 'energy field.' Their failure to substantiate TT's most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further professional use is unjustified.