Effectiveness of Distant Healing for Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Randomised Controlled Partially Blinded Trial (EUHEALS)

Abstract

Background: Distant healing, a form of spiritual healing, is widely used for many conditions but little is known about its effectiveness. Methods: In order to evaluate distant healing in patients with a stable chronic condition, we randomised 409 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) from 14 private practices for environmental medicine in Germany and Austria in a two by two factorial design to immediate versus deferred (waiting for 6 months) distant healing. Half the patients were blinded and half knew their treatment allocation. Patients were treated for 6 months and allocated to groups of 3 healers from a pool of 462 healers in 21 European countries with different healing traditions. Change in Mental Health Component Summary (MHCS) score (SF-36) was the primary outcome and Physical Health Component Summary score (PHCS) the secondary outcome. Results: This trial population had very low quality of life and symptom scores at entry. There were no differences over 6 months in post-treatment MHCS scores between the treated and untreated groups. There was a non-significant outcome (p = 0.11) for healing with PHCS (1.11; 95% CI –0.255 to 2.473 at 6 months) and a significant effect (p = 0.027) for blinding; patients who were unblinded became worse during the trial (–1.544; 95% CI –2.913 to –0.176). We found no relevant interaction for blinding among treated patients in MHCS and PHCS. Expectation of treatment and duration of CFS added significantly to the model. Conclusions: In patients with CFS, distant healing appears to have no statistically significant effect on mental and physical health but the expectation of improvement did improve outcome.

Is energy healing an effective non-pharmacological therapy for improving symptom management of chronic illnesses? A systematic review

“…Seven energy healing studies adequately assessed for belief or expectancy effects [12,34,35,38,39,42,46]. In two energy healing studies, participants were divided into two groups whereby one group were informed they would receive energy healing at a distance whilst the other group remained blinded to treatment condition [42,46].…”

“…In two energy healing studies, participants were divided into two groups whereby one group were informed they would receive energy healing at a distance whilst the other group remained blinded to treatment condition [42,46]. Treatment outcomes were then compared among participants allocated to distant healing groups who were expecting to receive healing compared to those who remained blinded.…”

“…Expectation of receiving distance healing was significantly associated with positive outcomes for adults with a diagnosed chronic illness or chronic fatigue syndrome [52]; and was partially supported (by small to moderate clinically significant effect sizes) in one study for adults with arthritis [46]. The Goldman Shore [39] RCT found that distance healing was not significantly associated with positive outcomes among adults with depression or other chronic illnesses.…”

“…Three energy healing studies had a low risk of bias [13,52,53], whilst an unclear risk of bias was found in two studies due to unclear randomisation procedures [39] and allocation procedures [39,46]. The remaining studies contained a high risk of bias sufficient to weaken the plausibility of results due to an inability to blind the energy healing practitioner (n=22); no allocation concealment procedures (n=2); lack of blinding of outcome assessors for patient reported outcomes (n=3); incomplete outcome data for short term outcomes (2-6 weeks) (n=3); or long term outcomes (>6 weeks) (n=2); or selective reporting (n=1) [26].…”

“…A specific visualisation component was not included in two studies that had significant results [40,52]. This may reflect that adequate information about healing interventions was not provided, or that visualisation was not a necessary component of effective healing interventions…”