Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health

Abstract

of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings 1. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS) versus STANDARD CARE INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS) versus STANDARD CARE for various illnesses Patient or population: patients with various illnesses Settings: in hospital Intervention: INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS) versus STANDARD CARE Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Outcomes Assumed risk Corresponding risk Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments Control INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS) versus STANDARD CARE Medium risk population Death by end of trial 96 per 1000 69 per 1000 (36 to 132) RR 0.72 (0.38 to 1.38) 3389 (5) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1,2 Medium risk population Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome 269 per 1000 264 per 1000 (231 to 299) RR 0.98 (0.86 to 1.11) 2705 (5) ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1,2 Medium risk population Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) 84 per 1000 84 per 1000 (65 to 109) RR 1 (0.77 to 1.3) 2644 (4) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate 1 Medium risk population Leaving the study early 2 per 1000 2 per 1000 (1 to 3) RR 0.75 (0.43 to 1.31) 3446 (6) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate 1 *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

Spiritual Discussion: Relevance, Benefits and Application to Primary Care Consultations

“…Medicine bases decision making on scientific discipline, value neutral and affect free interpretation of data, however scientific method is crude with qualitative data. Sloan et al argue that mingling faith with science serves neither and weakens both [43], whereas Astrow et al promote ending the 'false dichotomy' [2]. Medicine is an art and a science, a combination of intuitive practice and methodological discipline.…”

“…Sloan et al argument that the empirical evidence has numerous methodological challenges, and confounders often not controlled for, thereby introducing bias into the assessment, is compelling [43]. The weaknesses may reflect an emerging field of research, however advocating clinical interventions (i.e.…”

“…prescribing religiosity) as recommended by certain groups is without evidence. Most accept that spirituality is qualitatively different from other health behaviours even if associated with health benefits [2,43]. Claiming spirituality as an intervention misses the crux of why spirituality should be discussed, trivialises religion and practising religiosity for other reasons apart from its own sake may not accrue the same benefits [10].…”

“…Claiming spirituality as an intervention misses the crux of why spirituality should be discussed, trivialises religion and practising religiosity for other reasons apart from its own sake may not accrue the same benefits [10]. The only relevant Cochrane review focused on prayer as an intervention, commenting that research shows no beneficial or harmful effect, but noting that the quality of trials was poor [43]. Another review concluded that religious activity may improve health outcomes, again highlighting methodological failures [44].…”

Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases

“…Searches of Am Theo Lib Assoc (American Theological Library Association) appeared to yield no unique references for a Cochrane systematic review of intercessory prayer (16). However, Am Theo Lib Assoc searches identified unique references, not found in MEDLINE and PsycINFO in a study of religion and addiction (17).…”