Skip to main content

The Efficacy of "Distant Healing": A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

📄 Original study
Astin, John A, Harkness, Elaine, Ernst, Edzard 2000 Modern Era healing

📌 Appears in:

Plain English Summary

Can healing intentions sent from a distance -- through prayer, Therapeutic Touch, or mental focus -- actually help sick people recover? This landmark review in the Annals of Internal Medicine examined 23 rigorous clinical trials covering nearly 2,800 patients. The result is genuinely surprising: over half the studies found statistically significant positive effects from distant healing. Across well-blinded trials, the overall effect size (a measure of result strength) showed a modest but real-looking positive bump. Therapeutic Touch showed the strongest effects, followed by prayer. Notably, co-author Edzard Ernst later became one of the most vocal critics of alternative medicine -- not a team predisposed to believe. Still, the authors pumped the brakes, noting methodological weaknesses prevented firm conclusions. This review became a key benchmark for later researchers in the ongoing debate over distant healing.

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of the available data on the efficacy of any form of "distant healing" (prayer, mental healing, Therapeutic Touch, or spiritual healing) as treatment for any medical condition.

Data Sources: Studies were identified by an electronic search of the MEDLINE, PsychLIT, EMBASE, CISCOM, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to the end of 1999 and by contact with researchers in the field.

Study Selection: Studies with the following features were included: random assignment, placebo or other adequate control, publication in peer-reviewed journals, clinical (rather than experimental) investigations, and use of human participants.

Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted data on study design, sample size, type of intervention, type of control, direction of effect (supporting or refuting the hypothesis), and nature of the outcomes.

Data Synthesis: A total of 23 trials involving 2774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Heterogeneity of the studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. Of the trials, 5 examined prayer as the distant healing intervention, 11 assessed noncontact Therapeutic Touch, and 7 examined other forms of distant healing. Of the 23 studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects, 9 showed no effect over control interventions, and 1 showed a negative effect.

Conclusions: The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.

Links

Related Papers

More in Healing

📋 Cite this paper
APA
Astin, John A, Harkness, Elaine, Ernst, Edzard (2000). The Efficacy of "Distant Healing": A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-12-200006200-00008
BibTeX
@article{astin_2000_efficacy,
  title = {The Efficacy of "Distant Healing": A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials},
  author = {Astin, John A and Harkness, Elaine and Ernst, Edzard},
  year = {2000},
  journal = {Annals of Internal Medicine},
  doi = {10.7326/0003-4819-132-12-200006200-00008},
}