Therapeutic touch (TT) is a form of paranormal or energy healing developed by Dora Kunz (1904-1999), a psychic and alternative practitioner, in collaboration with Dolores Krieger, a professor of nursing. TT is popular and practised predominantly by US nurses; it is currently being taught in more than 80 colleges and universities in the U.S., and in more than seventy countries. According to one TT-organisation, TT is a holistic, evidence-based therapy that incorporates the intentional and compassionate use of universal energy to promote balance and well-being. It is a consciously directed process of energy exchange during which the practitioner uses the hands as a focus to facilitate the process.

The question is: does TT work beyond a placebo effect?

This review synthesized recent (January 2009–June 2020) investigations on the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch  (TT) as a therapy in clinical health applications. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. 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.

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. Over 70% of the included studies scored the lowest score possible on the GSRS weight of evidence scale. No high-quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.

The authors drew the following conclusions:

After 45 years of study, scientific evidence of the value of TT as a complementary intervention in the management of any condition still remains immature and inconclusive:

  • Given the mixed result, lack of replication, overall research quality and significant issues of bias identified, there currently exists no good quality evidence that supports the implementation of TT as an evidence‐based clinical intervention in any context.
  • Research over the past decade exhibits the same issues as earlier work, with highly diverse poor quality unreplicated studies mainly published in alternative health media.
  • As the nature of human biofield energy remains undemonstrated, and that no quality scientific work has established any clinically significant effect, more plausible explanations of the reported benefits are from wishful thinking and use of an elaborate theatrical placebo.

TT turns out to be a prime example of a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that enthusiastic amateurs, who wanted to prove TT’s effectiveness, have submitted to multiple trials. Thus the literature is littered with positive but unreliable studies. This phenomenon can create the impression – particularly to TT fans – that the treatment works.

This course of events shows in an exemplary fashion that research is not always something that creates progress. In fact, poor research often has the opposite effect. Eventually, a proper scientific analysis is required to put the record straight (the findings of which enthusiasts are unlikely to accept).

In view of all this, and considering the utter implausibility of TT, it seems an unethical waste of resources to continue researching the subject. Similarly, continuing to use TT in clinical settings is unethical and potentially dangerous.

10 Responses to Therapeutic Touch: “no quality scientific work has established any clinically significant effect”

  • Obligatory.

    Takeaway line:

    Perhaps the most important takeaway from this story is the democratic nature of the scientific method. A young child was able to devise an experiment that allowed her to test a given claim. This is precisely why any belief system that does not permit for such objective scrutiny should be viewed with much suspicion if not derision.

    Science works to disprove its own claims. SCAM works to confirm its own claims.

    Does this mean science knows something that SCAM does not?

  • Edzard says:
    “Similarly, continuing to use TT in clinical settings is unethical and potentially dangerous”.

    **Potentially dangerous,

    If you make a claim in a comment, support it with evidence.
    Can you support this claim with convincing incidents that have happened with TT?

    • anyone who thinks TT is effective and thus uses it to treat a serious condition brings him/herself in danger.
      simple logic which needs no experimental evidence [bungee jumping without attaching the elastic is dangerous; no evidence needed]

  • TT is –never– used to treat a serious condition; -everybody- knows that.
    Main purpose is stress and fear reduction..
    Why so many hospitals and hospices work with TT and see this is as an
    useful complementary treatment ?

    • “never” is certainly the wrong word in this context [and I did write POTENTIALLY]
      why do so many hospitals… ? [2 fallacies in one: appeal to authority and appeal to popularity]]

    • “-everybody- knows that”

      LOL. Alties do “know” lots of things.

      “Main purpose is stress and fear reduction..”

      A nice cup of tea, a shoulder rub, and a chat would do that. So why the need for pseudomedical deception?

      Heck, even a prayer meet would be better; at least it’s honest that it’s religion.

  • All the high academics in all these institutions of higher learning offering such courses, are brought low, ethically and academically, by the 1998 published work of nine-year-old Emily Rosa.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.