ABSTRACT
Energy healing is a complex intervention with the purpose of enhancing wholeness within the client. Approaches to complex interventions require thoughtful utilization of a wide range of research methods. In order to advance the research in this field, we sought to understand the healing practitioners' point of view by reviewing qualitative literature, research reviews, and commentary written by and about practitioners. Further, we conducted a brief survey among healers, asking their opinions on types and topics of research in this field. Emerging from this inquiry is an overview of the healers' state required for successful healing, the importance of the clients' contribution, the heterogeneity of the process of healing, and the importance of choosing appropriate outcomes to reflect the goal of wholeness. Beyond attending to measurement of these nuanced aspects, we propose utilization of research designs appropriate for complex interventions, more use of qualitative research techniques, consideration of large data registries, and adoption of the perspectives of realist research. An important gap identified was the overall lack of understanding of the clients' experience and contribution to the healing encounter.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a chief complaint in cancer patients, and warrants effective treatment. Biofield therapies are complementary medicine approaches used by cancer populations. There is little information about their efficacy. METHODS: This blinded, randomized controlled trial examined the effects of 4 weeks (eight 1-hour sessions) of biofield healing compared with mock healing and a waitlist control group on fatigue in 76 fatigued breast cancer survivors (stages I-IIIa). Secondary outcomes were diurnal cortisol variability (via estimates of cortisol slope), depression, and quality of life (QOL). Treatment belief was assessed to explore whether belief predicted outcomes. Data were analyzed via hierarchical linear modeling. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between biofield healing and mock healing on belief; 75% thought they received biofield healing. Compared with controls, biofield healing significantly decreased total fatigue (P < .0005, Cohen's d = 1.04), as did mock healing (P = .02, Cohen's d = 0.68), with no significant differences between biofield healing and mock healing. Cortisol slope significantly decreased for biofield healing versus both mock healing and control (P < .04 in both cases; Cohen's d = 0.58). Belief predicted changes in QOL over and above group (P = .004, Cohen's d = 0.84). Belief did not impact fatigue or cortisol variability. CONCLUSIONS: Nonspecific factors are important in responses to biofield interventions for fatigue. Belief predicts QOL responses but not fatigue or cortisol variability. Biofield therapies increase cortisol variability independent of belief and other nonspecific factors. There is a need to further examine the effects of specific processes of biofield healing on outcomes for cancer populations.
