Context.— Therapeutic Touch (TT) is a widely used nursing practice rooted in mysticism
but alleged to have a scientific basis. Practitioners of TT claim to treat
many medical conditions by using their hands to manipulate a "human energy
field" perceptible above the patient's skin.
Objective.— To investigate whether TT practitioners can actually perceive a "human
energy field."
Design.— Twenty-one practitioners with TT experience for from 1 to 27 years were
tested under blinded conditions to determine whether they could correctly
identify which of their hands was closest to the investigator's hand. Placement
of the investigator's hand was determined by flipping a coin. Fourteen practitioners
were tested 10 times each, and 7 practitioners were tested 20 times each.
Main Outcome Measure.— Practitioners of TT were asked to state whether the investigator's unseen
hand hovered above their right hand or their left hand. To show the validity
of TT theory, the practitioners should have been able to locate the investigator's
hand 100% of the time. A score of 50% would be expected through chance alone.
Results.— Practitioners of TT identified the correct hand in only 123 (44%) of
280 trials, which is close to what would be expected for random chance. There
was no significant correlation between the practitioner's score and length
of experience (r=0.23). The statistical power of
this experiment was sufficient to conclude that if TT practitioners could
reliably detect a human energy field, the study would have demonstrated this.
Conclusions.— Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigator's
"energy field." Their failure to substantiate TT's most fundamental claim
is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further
professional use is unjustified.
THERAPEUTIC TOUCH (TT) is a widely used nursing practice rooted in mysticism
but alleged to have a scientific basis. Its practitioners claim to heal or
improve many medical problems by manual manipulation of a "human energy field"
(HEF) perceptible above the patient's skin. They also claim to detect illnesses
and stimulate recuperative powers through their intention to heal. Therapeutic
Touch practice guides1-6
describe 3 basic steps, none of which actually requires touching the patient's
body. The first step is centering, in which the practitioner focuses on his
or her intent to help the patient. This step resembles meditation and is claimed
to benefit the practitioner as well. The second step is assessment, in which
the practitioner's hands, from a distance of 5 to 10 cm, sweep over the patient's
body from head to feet, "attuning" to the patient's condition by becoming
aware of "changes in sensory cues" in the hands. The third step is intervention,
in which the practitioner's hands "repattern" the patient's "energy field"
by removing "congestion," replenishing depleted areas, and smoothing out ill-flowing
areas. The resultant "energy balance" purportedly stems disease and allows
the patient's body to heal itself.7
Proponents of TT state that they have "seen it work."8
In a 1995 interview, TT's founder said, "In theory, there should be no limitation
on what healing can be accomplished."9Table 1 lists some claims made for TT in
published reports.
Proponents state that more than 100000 people worldwide have been trained
in TT technique,38 including at least 43000
health care professionals,2 and that about
half of those trained actually practice it.39
Therapeutic Touch is taught in more than 100 colleges and universities in
75 countries.5 It is said to be the most recognized
technique used by practitioners of holistic nursing.40
Considered a nursing intervention, it is used by nurses in at least 80 hospitals
in North America,33 often without the permission
or even knowledge of attending physicians.41-43
The policies and procedures books of some institutions recognize TT,44 and it is the only treatment for the "energy-field
disturbance" diagnosis recognized by the North American Nursing Diagnosis
Association.45RN,
one of the nursing profession's largest periodicals, has published many articles
favorable to TT.46-52
Many professional nursing organizations promote TT. In 1987, the 50000-member
Order of Nurses of Quebec endorsed TT as a "bona fide" nursing skill.32 The National League for Nursing, the credentialing
agency for nursing schools in the United States, denies having an official
stand on TT but has promoted it through books and videotapes,3,53,54
and the league's executive director and a recent president are prominent advocates.55 The American Nurses' Association holds TT workshops
at its national conventions. Its official journal published the premier articles
on TT56-59
as well as a recent article designated for continuing education credits.60 The association's immediate past president has written
editorials defending TT against criticism.61
The American Holistic Nursing Association offers certification in "healing
touch," a TT variant.62 The Nurse Healers and
Professional Associates Cooperative, which was formed to promote TT, claims
about 1200 members.39
Therapeutic Touch was conceived in the early 1970s by Dolores Krieger,
PhD, RN, a faculty member at New York University's Division of Nursing. Although
often presented as a scientific adaptation of "laying-on of hands,"63-68
TT is imbued with metaphysical ideas.
Krieger initially identified TT's active agent as prana, an ayurvedic, or traditional Indian, concept of "life force."
She stated,
Health is considered a harmonious relationship between the individual
and his total environment. There is postulated a continuing interacting flow
of energies from within the individual outward, and from the environment to
the various levels of the individual. Healing, it is said, helps to restore
this equilibrium in the ill person. Disease, within this context, is considered
an indication of a disturbance in the free flow of the pranic current.
Krieger further postulated that this "pranic current" can be controlled
by the will of the healer.
When an individual who is healthy touches an ill person with
the intent of helping or healing him, he acts as a transference agent for
the flow of prana from himself to the ill person. It was this added input
of prana . . . that helped the ill person to overcome his illness or to feel
better, more vital.
Others associate all this with the Chinese notion of qi, a "life energy" alleged to flow through the human body through
invisible "meridians." Those inspired by mystical healers of India describe
this energy as flowing in and out of sites of the body that they call chakras.
Soon after its conception, TT became linked with the westernized notions
of the late Martha Rogers, dean of nursing at New York University. She asserted
that humans do not merely possess energy fields but are energy fields and constantly interact with the "environmental field"
around them. Rogers dubbed her approach the "Science of Unitary Man,"69 which later became known as the more neutral "Science
of Unitary Human Beings." Her nomenclature stimulated the pursuit of TT as
a "scientific" practice. Almost all TT discussion today is based on Rogers'
concepts, although Eastern metaphysical terms such as chakra2,70 and yin-yang71 are still used.
The HEF postulated by TT theorists resembles the "magnetic fluid" or
"animal magnetism" postulated during the 18th century by Anton Mesmer and
his followers. Mesmerism held that illnesses are caused by obstacles to the
free flow of this fluid and that skilled healers ("sensitives") could remove
these obstacles by making passes with their hands. Some aspects of mesmerism
were revived in the 19th century by Theosophy, an occult religion that incorporated
Eastern metaphysical concepts and underlies many current New Age ideas.72 Dora Kunz, who is considered TT's codeveloper, was
president of the Theosophical Society of America from 1975 to 1987. She collaborated
with Krieger on the early TT studies and claims to be a fifth-generation "sensitive"
and a "gifted healer."20
Therapeutic Touch is set apart from many other alternative healing modalities,
as well as from scientific medicine, by its emphasis on the healer's intention.
Whereas the testing of most therapies requires controlling for the placebo
effect (often influenced by the recipient's belief about efficacy), TT theorists
suggest that the placebo effect is irrelevant. According to Krieger,
Faith on the part of the subject does not make a significant
difference in the healing effect. Rather, the role of faith seems to be psychological,
affecting his acceptance of his illness or consequent recovery and what this
means to him. The healer, on the other hand, must have some belief system
that underlies his actions, if one is to attribute rationality to his behavior.65
Thus, the TT hypothesis and the entire practice of TT rest on the idea
that the patient's energy field can be detected and intentionally manipulated
by the therapist. With this in mind, early practitioners concluded that physical
contact might not be necessary.13 The thesis
that the HEF extends beyond the skin and can be influenced from several centimeters
away from the body's surface is said to have been tested by Janet Quinn, PhD,
and reported in her 1982 dissertation.14 However,
that study merely showed no difference between groups of patients who did
or did not have actual contact during TT. Although Quinn's work has never
been substantiated, nearly all TT practitioners today use only the noncontact
form of TT.
As originally developed by Krieger, TT did involve touch, although clothes
and other materials interposed between practitioner and patient were not considered
significant.56 It was named TT because the
aboriginal term laying-on of hands was considered
an obstacle to acceptance by "curriculum committees and other institutional
bulwarks of today's society."66 The mysticism
has been downplayed, and various scientific-sounding mechanisms have been
proposed. These include the therapeutic value of skin-to-skin contact, electron
transfer resonance, oxygen uptake by hemoglobin, stereochemical similarities
of hemoglobin and chlorophyll, electrostatic potentials influenced by healer
brain activity, and unspecified concepts from quantum theory.66,67
Therapeutic Touch is said to be in the vanguard of treatments that allow
"healing" to take place, as opposed to the "curing" pejoratively ascribed
to mainstream medical practice. Therapeutic Touch supposedly requires little
training beyond refining an innate ability to focus one's intent to heal;
the patient's body then does the rest.5 Nurses
who claim a unique professional emphasis on caring are said to be specially
situated to help patients by using TT.56,59
Nonetheless, proponents also state that nearly everyone has an innate ability
to learn TT, even small children and juvenile delinquents on parole.2,17,32
Proponents describe the HEF as real and perceptible. Reporting on a
pilot study, Krieger claimed that 4 blindfolded men with transected spinal
cords "could tell exactly where the nurse's hands were in their HEFs during
the Therapeutic Touch interaction."5 In ordinary
TT sessions, practitioners go through motions that supposedly interact with
the patient's energy field, including flicking "excess energy" from their
fingertips.3
Therapeutic Touch is claimed to have only beneficial effects.39 However, some proponents warn against overly lengthy
sessions or overtreating certain areas of the body. This caution is based
on the notion that too much energy can be imparted to a patient, especially
an infant, which could lead to hyperactivity.5,73,74
Although TT proponents refer to a voluminous and growing body of valid
research,63,75,76
few studies have been well designed. Some clinical studies, mostly nursing
doctoral dissertations, have reported positive results, principally with headache
relief, relaxation, and wound healing.5,13,14,23,24,26,28,30,68,77-86
However, the methods, credibility, and significance of these studies have
been seriously questioned.41,87-95
One prominent proponent questions the validity of the typical placebo control
used in these studies.96
Two of the authors (L.R. and L.S.) have conducted extensive literature
searches covering the years 1972 through 1996. Using key words such as therapeutic touch, touch therapies, human energy field, quackery,
and alternative medicine, we have searched MEDLINE, Index Medicus, CINAHL, Dissertation Abstracts,
Masters Abstracts, Science Citation Index, Government Publications Index, Books
in Print, National Union Catalog, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, and Alternative
Press Index . We attempted to obtain a full copy of each publication
and every additional publication cited in the ones we subsequently collected.
During 1997, we continued to monitor the journals most likely to contain material
about TT.
These methods have enabled us to identify and obtain 853 reports (or
abstracts), of which 609 deal specifically with TT, 224 mention it incidentally,
and 20 discuss TT predecessors. Ninety-seven other cited items were either
nonpublished or were published in obscure media we could not locate. Only
83 of the 853 reports described clinical research or other investigations
by their authors. Nine of these studies were not quantitative. At most, only
1 (the study by Quinn14 ) of the 83 may have
demonstrated independent confirmation of any positive study.97
(That study was conducted by a close associate of the original researcher.)
To our knowledge, no reported study attempted to test whether a TT practitioner
could actually detect an HEF.
Of the 74 quantitative studies, 23 were clearly unsupportive. Eight
reported no statistically significant results,16,58,98-103
3 admitted to having inadequate samples,22,56,104
2 were inconclusive,11,105 and
6 had negative findings.106-111
Four attempted independent replications but failed to support the original
findings.112-115
To our knowledge, no attempt to conduct experiments to reconcile any of these
unsupportive findings has been reported.
In 1994, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (UCHSC),
Denver, empaneled a scientific jury in response to a challenge to TT in its
nursing curriculum. After surveying published research, the panel concluded
that "there is not a sufficient body of data, both in quality and quantity,
to establish TT as a unique and efficacious healing modality."116
A few months later, a University of Alabama at Birmingham research team
declared that their own imminent study (financed by a $335000 federal grant)
would be "the first real scientific evidence" for TT.117,118
This project compared the effects of TT and sham TT on the perception of pain
by burn patients. The final report to the funding agency noted statistically
significant differences in pain and anxiety in 3 of 7 subjective measurements,
but there was no difference in the amount of pain medication requested.119
With little clinical or quantitative research to support the practice
of TT, proponents have shifted to qualitative research, which merely compiles
anecdotes.120 This approach, which involves
asking subjects what they feel and drawing conclusions from their descriptions,17,43,121-128
was sharply criticized by UCHSC's scientific panel.116
Both TT theory and technique require that an HEF be felt in order to
impart any therapeutic benefit to a subject. Thus, the definitive test of
TT is not a clinical trial of its alleged therapeutic effects, but a test
of whether practitioners can perceive HEFs, which they describe, in print
and in our study, with such terms as tingling, pulling, throbbing, hot,cold, spongy,
and tactile as taffy . After doing its own survey,
the UCHSC panel declared that no one had "even any ideas about how such research
might be conducted."115 This study fills that
void.
In 1996 and 1997, by searching for advertisements and following other
leads, 2 of us (L.R. and L.S.) located 25 TT practitioners in northeastern
Colorado, 21 of whom readily agreed to be tested. Of those who did not, 1
stated she was not qualified, 2 gave no reason, and 1 agreed but canceled
on the day of the test.
The reported practice experience of those tested ranged from 1 to 27
years. There were 9 nurses, 7 certified massage therapists, 2 laypersons,
1 chiropractor, 1 medical assistant, and 1 phlebotomist. All but 2 were women,
which reflects the sex ratio of the practitioner population. One nurse had
published an article on TT in a journal for nurse practitioners.
There were 2 series of tests. In 1996, 15 practitioners were tested
at their homes or offices on different days for a period of several months.
In 1997, 13 practitioners, including 7 from the first series, were tested
in a single day.
The test procedures were explained by 1 of the authors (E.R.), who designed
the experiment herself. The first series of tests was conducted when she was
9 years old. The participants were informed that the study would be published
as her fourth-grade science-fair project and gave their consent to be tested.
The decision to submit the results to a scientific journal was made several
months later, after people who heard about the results encouraged publication.
The second test series was done at the request of a Public Broadcasting Service
television producer who had heard about the first study. Participants in the
second series were informed that the test would be videotaped for possible
broadcast and gave their consent.
During each test, the practitioners rested their hands, palms up, on
a flat surface, approximately 25 to 30 cm apart. To prevent the experimenter's
hands from being seen, a tall, opaque screen with cutouts at its base was
placed over the subject's arms, and a cloth towel was attached to the screen
and draped over them (Figure 1).
Each subject underwent a set of 10 trials. Before each set, the subject
was permitted to "center" or make any other mental preparations deemed necessary.
The experimenter flipped a coin to determine which of the subject's hands
would be the target. The experimenter then hovered her right hand, palm down,
8 to 10 cm above the target and said, "Okay." The subject then stated which
of his or her hands was nearer to the experimenter's hand. Each subject was
permitted to take as much or as little time as necessary to make each determination.
The time spent ranged from 7 to 19 minutes per set of trials.
To examine whether air movement or body heat might be detectable by
the experimental subjects, preliminary tests were performed on 7 other subjects
who had no training or belief in TT. Four were children who were unaware of
the purpose of the test. Those results indicated that the apparatus prevented
tactile cues from reaching the subject.
The odds of getting 8 of 10 trials correct by chance alone is 45 of
1024 (P=.04), a level considered significant in many
clinical trials. We decided in advance that an individual would "pass" by
making 8 or more correct selections and that those passing the test would
be retested, although the retest results would not be included in the group
analysis. Results for the group as a whole would not be considered positive
unless the average score was above 6.7 at a 90% confidence level.
If HEF perception through TT was possible, the experimental subjects
should have each been able to detect the experimenter's hand in 10 (100%)
of 10 trials. Chance alone would produce an average score of 5 (50%).
Before testing, all participants said they could use TT to significant
therapeutic advantage. Each described sensory cues they used to assess and
manipulate the HEF. All participants but 1 certified massage therapist expressed
high confidence in their TT abilities, and even the aforementioned certified
massage therapist said afterward that she felt she had passed the test to
her own satisfaction.
In the initial trial, the subjects stated the correct location of the
investigator's hand in 70 (47%) of 150 tries. The number of correct choices
ranged from 2 to 8. Only 1 subject scored 8, and that same subject scored
only 6 on the retest.
After each set of trials, the results were discussed with the participant.
Because all but 1 of the trials could have been considered a failure, the
participants usually chose to discuss possible explanations for failure. Their
rationalizations included the following: (1) The experimenter left a "memory"
of her hand behind, making it increasingly difficult in successive trials
to detect the real hand from the memory. However, the first attempts (7 correct
and 8 incorrect) scored no better than the rest. Moreover, practitioners should
be able to tell whether a field they are sensing is "fresh." (2) The left
hand is the "receiver" of energy and the right hand is the "transmitter."
Therefore, it can be more difficult to detect the field when it is above the
right hand. Of the 72 tests in which the hand was placed above the subjects'
right hand, only 27 (38%) had correct responses. In addition, 35 (44%) of
80 incorrect answers involved the allegedly more receptive left hand—consistent
with randomness. Moreover, practitioners customarily use both hands to assess.
(3) Subjects should be permitted to identify the experimenter's field before
beginning actual trials. Each subject could be given an example of the experimenter
hovering her hand above each of theirs and told which hand it is. Since the
effects of the HEF are described in unsubtle terms, such a procedure should
not be necessary, but including it would remove a possible post hoc objection.
Therefore, we did so in the follow-up testing. (4) The experimenter should
be more proactive, centering herself and/or attempting to transmit energy
through her own intentionality. This contradicts the fundamental premise of
TT, since the experimenter's role is analogous to that of a patient. Only
the practitioner's intentionality and preparation (centering) are theoretically
necessary. If not so, the early experiments (on relatively uninvolved subjects,
such as infants and barley seeds), cited frequently by TT advocates, must
also be discounted. (5) Some subjects complained that their hands became so
hot after a few trials that they were no longer able to sense the experimenter's
HEF or they experienced difficulty doing so. This explanation clashes with
TT's basic premise that practitioners can sense and manipulate the HEF with
their hands during sessions that typically last 20 to 30 minutes. If practitioners
become insensitive after only brief testing, the TT hypothesis is untestable.
Those who made this complaint did so after they knew the results, not before.
Moreover, only 7 of the 15 first trials produced correct responses.
The 1997 testing was completed in 1 day and videotaped by a professional
film crew. Each subject was allowed to "feel" the investigator's energy field
and choose which hand the investigator would use for testing. Seven subjects
chose her left hand, and 6 chose her right hand.
The test results were similar to those of the first series. The subjects
correctly located the investigator's hand in only 53 (41%) of 130 tries. The
number of correct answers ranged from 1 to 7. After learning of their test
scores, one participant said he was distracted by the towel over his hands,
another said that her hands had been too dry, and several complained that
the presence of the television crew had made it difficult to concentrate and/or
added to the stress of the test. However, we do not believe that the situation
was more stressful or distracting than the settings in which many hospital
nurses practice TT (eg, intensive care units). Figure 2 shows the distribution of test results.
Our null hypothesis was that the experimental results would be due to
chance (µ=5). Our alternative hypothesis was that the subjects would
perform at better than chance levels. The t statistic
of our data did not exceed the upper critical limit of the Student t distribution (Table 2).
Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the .05 level of significance
for a 1-tailed test, which means that our subjects, with only 123 of 280 correct
in the 2 trials, did not perform better than chance.
Our data also showed that if the practitioners could reliably detect
an HEF 2 of 3 times, then the probability that either test missed such an
effect would be less than .05. If the practitioners' true detection rate was
3 of 4, then the probability that our experiment missed it would be less than
3 in 10000. However, if TT theory is correct, practitioners should always
be able to sense the energy field of their patients. We would also expect
accuracy to increase with experience. However, there was no significant correlation
between the practitioners' scores and the length of time they had practiced
TT (r=0.23). We conclude on both statistical and
logical grounds that TT practitioners have no such ability.
Practitioners of TT are generally reluctant to be tested by people who
are not proponents. In 1996, the James Randi Educational Foundation offered
$742000 to anyone who could demonstrate an ability to detect an HEF under
conditions similar to those of our study. Although more than 40000 American
practitioners claim to have such an ability, only 1 person attempted the demonstration.
She failed, and the offer, now more than $1.1 million, has had no further
volunteers despite extensive recruiting efforts.129
We suspect that the present authors were able to secure the cooperation
of 21 practitioners because the person conducting the test was a child who
displayed no skepticism.
Therapeutic touch is grounded on the concept that people have an energy
field that is readily detectable (and modifiable) by TT practitioners. However,
this study found that 21 experienced practitioners, when blinded, were unable
to tell which of their hands was in the experimenter's energy field. The mean
correct score for the 28 sets of 10 tests was 4.4, which is close to what
would be expected for random guessing.
To our knowledge, no other objective, quantitative study involving more
than a few TT practitioners has been published, and no well-designed study
demonstrates any health benefit from TT. These facts, together with our experimental
findings, suggest that TT claims are groundless and that further use of TT
by health professionals is unjustified.
1.Bogulawski M. The use of Therapeutic Touch in nursing.
J Contin Educ Nurs.1979;10:9-17.Google Scholar 2.Krieger D. Therapeutic Touch Inner Workbook. Santa Fe, NM: Bear; 1997:162.
3.Quinn JF. Therapeutic Touch: Healing Through Human Energy Fields:
Theory and Research [videotapes and study guide]. New York, NY: National League for Nursing; 1994:42-2485–42-2487,
42-2493.
4.Krieger D. Living the Therapeutic Touch: Healing as a Lifestyle. New York, NY: Dodd Mead; 1987.
5.Krieger D. Accepting Your Power to Heal: The Personal Practice of Therapeutic
Touch. Santa Fe, NM: Bear; 1993.
6.Chiappone J. The Light Touch: An Easy Guide to Hands-on Healing. Lake Mary, Fla: Holistic Reflections; 1989:14.
7.Quinn JF, Strelkauskas AJ. Psycho immunologic effects of Therapeutic Touch on practitioners and
recently bereaved recipients: a pilot study.
ANS Adv Nurs Sci.1993;15(4):13-26.Google Scholar 8.Jarboux D. Nurse knows Therapeutic Touch "works."
Boulder Sunday Camera.January 2, 1994:3E.Google Scholar 9.Putnam ZE. Using consciousness to heal.
Massage Ther J.Fall 1995:47-48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60.Google Scholar 11.Krieger D. Therapeutic Touch during childbirth preparation by the Lamaze method
and its relation to marital satisfaction and state anxiety of the married
couple. In: Krieger D. Living the Therapeutic Touch: Healing as a Lifestyle. New York, NY: Dodd Mead; 1987:157-187.
12.Glazer S. The mystery of "Therapeutic Touch."
Washington Post.December 19-26, 1995;Health section:16-17.Google Scholar 13.Heidt PR. Effect of Therapeutic Touch on anxiety level of hospitalized patients.
Nurs Res.1981;30(1):32-37.Google Scholar 14.Quinn JF. An Investigation of the Effects of Therapeutic Touch
Done Without Physical Contact on State Anxiety of Hospitalized Cardiovascular
Patients [dissertation]. New York: New York University; 1982.
15.Thayer MB. Touching with intent: using Therapeutic Touch.
Pediatr Nurs.1990;16(1):70-72.Google Scholar 16.Mersmann CA. Therapeutic Touch and Milk Let Down in Mothers of
Non-nursing Preterm Infants [dissertation]. New York: New York University; 1993.
17.France NEM. The child's perception of the human energy field using Therapeutic
Touch.
J Holist Nurs.1993;11:319-331.Google Scholar 18.Meehan MTC. The Science of Unitary Human Beings and theory-based practice: Therapeutic
Touch. In: Barrett EAM, ed. Visions of Rogers' Science-Based Nursing. New York, NY: National League for Nursing; 1990:67-81. Publication
15-2285.
19.Peters PJ. The Lifestyle Changes of Selected Therapeutic Touch
Practitioners: An Oral History [dissertation]. Minneapolis, Minn: Walden University; 1992.
20.Bogulawski M. Therapeutic Touch: a facilitator of pain relief.
Top Clin Nurs.1980;2(1):27-37.Google Scholar 22.Brown PR. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on Chemotherapy-induced
Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Study [master's thesis]. Reno: University of Nevada; 1981.
23.Sodergren KA. The Effect of Absorption and Social Closeness on
Responses to Educational and Relaxation Therapies in Patients With Anticipatory
Nausea and Vomiting During Cancer Chemotherapy [dissertation]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 1993.
24.Dollar CE. Effects of Therapeutic Touch on Perception of Pain
and Physiological Measurements From Tension Headache in Adults: A Pilot Study [master's thesis]. Jackson: University of Mississippi Medical Center; 1993.
25.Quinn JF. Holding sacred space: the nurse as healing environment.
Holist Nurs Pract.1992;6(4):26-36.Google Scholar 26.Wirth DP. The effect of non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the healing rate of
full thickness dermal wounds.
Subtle Energies.1990;1(1):1-20.Google Scholar 27.Woods DL. The Effect of Therapeutic Touch on Disruptive Behaviors
of Individuals With Dementia of the Alzheimer Type [master's thesis]. Seattle: University of Washington; 1993.
28.Misra MM. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on Menstruation. [master's
thesis]. Long Beach: California State University; 1993.
29.Putnam ZE. The woman behind Therapeutic Touch: Dolores Krieger, PhD, RN.
Massage Ther J.Fall 1995:50, 52.Google Scholar 30.Simington JA, Laing GP. Effects of Therapeutic Touch on anxiety in the institutionalized elderly.
Clin Nurs Res.1993;2:438-450.Google Scholar 31.Quinn JF. The Senior's Therapeutic Touch Education Program.
Holist Nurs Pract.1992;7(1):32-37.Google Scholar 32.Krieger D. Therapeutic Touch: two decades of research, teaching and clinical practice.
Imprint.1990;37:83, 86-88.Google Scholar 34.Calvert R. Dolores Krieger, PhD, and her Therapeutic Touch.
Massage Magazine.1994;47:56-60.Google Scholar 35.Mueller-Jackson ME. The use of Therapeutic Touch in the nursing care of the terminally
ill person. In: Borelli MD, Heidt PR, eds. Therapeutic Touch: A Book of
Readings. New York, NY: Springer; 1981:72-79.
36.Brunjes CAF. Therapeutic Touch: a healing modality throughout life.
Top Clin Nurs.1983;5(2):72-79.Google Scholar 37.Messenger TC, Roberts KT. The terminally ill: serenity nursing interventions for hospice clients.
J Gerontol Nurs.1994 Nov;20(11):17-22.Google Scholar 39.Kauffold MP. TT: healing or hokum? debate over "energy medicine" runs hot.
Chicago Tribune Nursing News.November 19, 1995:1.Google Scholar 41.Bullough VL, Bullough B. Therapeutic Touch: why do nurses believe?
Skeptical Inquirer.1993;17:169-174.Google Scholar 42. Dr Quinn studies Therapeutic Touch.
University of Colorado School of Nursing News.May 1989:1.Google Scholar 43.Cabico LL. A Phenomenological Study of the Experiences of Nurses
Practicing Therapeutic Touch [master's thesis]. Buffalo, NY: D'Youville College; 1992.
44.Rosa LA. When magic gets to play science.
Rocky Mountain Skeptic.1993;10(6):10-12.Google Scholar 45.Carpenito LJ. Nursing Diagnosis: Application to Clinical Practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott; 1995:355-358.
46.Sandroff R. A skeptic's guide to Therapeutic Touch.
RN.1980;43(1):24-30, 82-83.Google Scholar 47.Raucheisen ML. Therapeutic Touch: maybe there's something to it after all.
RN.1984;47(12):49-51.Google Scholar 48.Haddad A. Acute care decisions: ethics in action.
RN.1994;57(11):21-22, 24.Google Scholar 49.Swackhamer AH. It's time to broaden our practice.
RN.1995;58(1):49-51.Google Scholar 50.Schmidt CM. The basics of Therapeutic Touch.
RN.1995;58(6):50, 52, 54.Google Scholar 51.Ledwith SP. Therapeutic Touch and mastectomy: a case study.
RN.1995;58(7):51-53.Google Scholar 52.Keegan L, Cerrato PL. Nurses are embracing holistic healing.
RN.1996;59(4):59.Google Scholar 53.Moccia P. New Approaches to Theory Development. New York, NY: National League for Nursing; 1986;15-1992.
54.Barrett EAM. Visions of Rogers' Science-Based Nursing. New York, NY: National League for Nursing; 1990;15-2285.
56.Krieger D. Therapeutic Touch: the imprimatur of nursing.
Am J Nurs.1975;75:784-787.Google Scholar 57.Krieger D, Peper E, Ancoli S. Therapeutic Touch: searching for evidence of physiological change.
Am J Nurs.1979;79:660-662.Google Scholar 58.Macrae JA. Therapeutic Touch in practice.
Am J Nurs.1979;79:664-665.Google Scholar 59.Quinn JF. One nurse's evolution as a healer.
Am J Nurs.1979;79:662-664.Google Scholar 60.Mackey RB. Complementary modalities. Part 1. Discover the healing power of Therapeutic Touch.
Am J Nurs.1995;95:26-32; quiz 32-33.Google Scholar 61.Joel LA. Alternative solutions to health problems.
Am J Nurs.1995 Jul;95(7):7.Google Scholar 62.Hover-Kramer D. Healing Touch certificate program continues to bring the human dimension
to the nation's nurses.
Beginnings.1992;12(2):3.Google Scholar 63.Cowens C, Monte T. A Gift for Healing: How You Can Use Therapeutic Touch. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group; 1996.
64.Krieger D. The response of in-vivo human hemoglobin to an active healing therapy
by direct laying on of hands.
Human Dimensions.Autumn 1972:12-15.Google Scholar 65.Krieger D. Therapeutic Touch and healing energies from the laying on of hands.
J Holistic Health.1975;1:23-30.Google Scholar 66.Krieger D. Therapeutic Touch: an ancient, but unorthodox nursing intervention.
J N Y State Nurses Assoc.1975;6(2):6-10.Google Scholar 67.Krieger D. Healing by the laying-on of hands as a facilitator of bio-energetic
change: the response of in-vivo human hemoglobin.
Int J Psychoenergy Syst.1976;1(1):121-129.Google Scholar 68.Krieger D. The relationship of touch, with intent to help or to heal, to subjects'
in-vivo hemoglobin values: a study in personalized interaction. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ANA Nurses Research Conference. New York, NY: American Nurses' Association; 1973:39-59.
69.Rogers ME. An Introduction to the Theoretical Basis of Nursing. Philadelphia, Pa: Davis; 1970.
70.Karagulla S, Kunz D. The Chakras and the Human Energy Field: Correlations Between
Medical Science & Clairvoyant Observation. Wheaton, Ill: Theosophical Publishing House; 1989.
71.Randolph GL. The yin and yang of clinical practice.
Top Clin Nurs.1979;1(1):31-42.Google Scholar 72.Brierton TD. Employers' New Age training programs fail to alter the consciousness
of the EEOC.
Lab Law J.1992;43:411-420.Google Scholar 73.Emery CE. Therapeutic Touch: healing technique or New Age rite?
Providence Sun Journal-Bulletin.November 27, 1994:A1, A24.Google Scholar 74.Knaster M. Dolores Krieger's Therapeutic Touch.
East/West.1989;19(8):54-57, 59, 79-80.Google Scholar 75.Colorado State Board of Nursing. Subcommittee to Investigate the Awarding of Continuing Education
Units to Nurses for the Study of Therapeutic Touch and Other Non-traditional
and Complementary Healing Modalities. Recommendations. Denver: Colorado State Board of Nursing; 1992.
76.Mulloney SS, Wells-Federman C. Therapeutic Touch: a healing modality.
J Cardiovasc Nurs.1996;10(3):27-49.Google Scholar 77.Brown CC, Fischer R, Wagman AMI, Horrom N, Marks P. The EEG in meditation and Therapeutic Touch healing.
J Altered States Conscious.1977;3:169-180.Google Scholar 78.Quinn JF. Therapeutic Touch as energy exchange: testing the theory.
ANS Adv Nurs Sci.1984;6(1):42-49.Google Scholar 79.Guerrero MA. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on State-Trait Anxiety
Level of Oncology Patients [master's thesis]. Galveston: University of Texas; 1985.
80.Keller EAK, Bzdek VM. Effects of Therapeutic Touch on tension headache pain.
Nurs Res.1986;35(2):101-106.Google Scholar 81.Meehan MTC. Theory development. In: Barrett EAM, ed. Visions of Rogers' Science-Based Nursing. New York, NY: National League for Nursing; 1990;15-2285:197-207.
82.Kramer NA. Comparison of Therapeutic Touch and Casual Touch in stress reduction
of hospitalized children.
Pediatr Nurs.1990;16:483-485.Google Scholar 83.Shuzman E. The Effect of Trait Anxiety and Patient Expectation
of Therapeutic Touch on the Reduction in State Anxiety in Preoperative Patients
Who Receive Therapeutic Touch [dissertation]. New York: New York University; 1993.
84.Sies MM. An Exploratory Study of Relaxation Response in Nurses
Who Utilize Therapeutic Touch [master's thesis]. East Lansing: Michigan State University; 1993.
85.Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Eidelman WS, O'Malley AC. Full thickness dermal wounds treated with Therapeutic Touch: a replication
and extension.
Complementary Ther Med.1993;1:127-132.Google Scholar 86.Gagne D, Toye RC. The effects of Therapeutic Touch and relaxation therapy in reducing
anxiety.
Arch Psychiatr Nurs.1994;8:184-189.Google Scholar 87.Schlotfeldt RM. Critique of: Krieger D. The relationship of touch, with intent to help
or heal, to subjects' in-vivo hemoglobin values: a study in personalized interaction. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ANA Nurses Research Conference. New York, NY: American Nurses' Association; 1973:59-65.
88.Walike BC, Bruno P, Donaldson S.
et al. ". . .[A]ttempts to embellish a totally unscientific process with the
aura of science. . . ."
Am J Nurs.1975;75:1275, 1278, 1292.Google Scholar 89.Levine ME. "The science is spurious. . . ."
Am J Nurs.1979;79:1379-1380.Google Scholar 90.Clark PE, Clark MJ. Therapeutic Touch: is there a scientific basis for the practice?
Nurs Res.1984;33(1):37-41.Google Scholar 91.Meehan MTC. Therapeutic Touch. In: Bulechek GM, McCloskey JC, eds. Nursing Interventions:
Essential Nursing Treatments. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1992:201-212.
92.Fish S. Therapeutic Touch: can we trust the data?
J Christ Nurs.1993;10(3):6-8.Google Scholar 93.Meehan MTC. Therapeutic Touch and postoperative pain: a Rogerian research study.
Nurs Sci Q.1993;6(2):69-78.Google Scholar 94.Bandman EL, Bandman B. Critical Thinking in Nursing. Norwalk, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1995.
96.Meehan MTC. . . . And still more on TT.
Res Nurs Health.1995;18:471-472.Google Scholar 97.Rosa LA. Survey of Therapeutic Touch "Research." Loveland, Colo: Front Range Skeptics; 1996.
98.Tharnstrom CAL. The Effects of Non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the
Parasympathetic Nervous System as Evidenced by Superficial Skin Temperature
and Perceived Stress [master's thesis]. San Jose, Calif: San Jose State University; 1993.
99.Parkes BS. Therapeutic Touch as an Intervention to Reduce Anxiety
in Elderly Hospitalized Patients [dissertation]. Austin: University of Texas; 1985.
100.Mueller Hinze ML. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch and Acupressure
on Experimentally-Induced Pain [dissertation]. Austin: University of Texas; 1988.
101.Bowers DP. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on State Anxiety
and Physiological Measurements in Preoperative Clients [master's thesis]. San Jose, Calif: San Jose State University, 1992.
102.Olson M, Sneed NV. Anxiety and Therapeutic Touch.
Issues Ment Health Nurs.1995;16:97-108.Google Scholar 103.Fedoruk RB. Transfer of the Relaxation Response: Therapeutic
Touch as a Method for Reduction of Stress in Premature Neonates [dissertation]. Baltimore: University of Maryland; 1984.
104.Hogg PK. The Effects of Acupressure on the Psychological and
Physiological Rehabilitation of the Stroke Patient [dissertation]. Alameda: California School of Professional Psychology; 1985.
105.Snyder M, Egan EC, Burns KR. Interventions for decreasing agitation behaviors in persons with dementia.
J Gerontol Nurs.1995;21(7):34-40, 54-55.Google Scholar 106.Schweitzer SF. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on Short-term Memory
Recall in the Aging Population: A Pilot Study [master's thesis]. Reno: University of Nevada; 1980.
107.Randolph GL. Therapeutic and physical touch: physiological response to stressful
stimuli.
Nurs Res.1984;33(1):33-36.Google Scholar 108.Nodine JL. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on Anxiety and Well-being
in Third Trimester Pregnant Women [master's thesis]. Tucson: University of Arizona; 1987.
109.Post NW. The Effects of Therapeutic Touch on Muscle Tone
[master's thesis]. San Jose, Calif: San Jose State University; 1990.
110.Straneva JAE. Therapeutic Touch and In Vitro Erythropoiesis
[dissertation]. Bloomington: Indiana University; 1992.
111.Bush AM, Geist CR. Geophysical variables and behavior: LXX. Testing electromagnetic
explanations for a possible psychokinetic effect
of therapeutic touch in germinating corn seed.
Psychol Rep.1992;70:891-896.Google Scholar 112.Edge H. The effect of laying on of hands on an enzyme: an attempted replication. Paper presented at: 22nd Annual Convention of the Parapsychology
Association; August 15-18, 1979; Moraga, Calif.
113.Meehan MTC. The Effect of Therapeutic Touch on the Experience
of Acute Pain in Postoperative Patients [dissertation]. New York: New York University; 1985.
114.Hale EH. A Study of the Relationship Between Therapeutic Touch
and the Anxiety Levels of Hospitalized Adults [dissertation]. Denton: Texas Women's University; 1986.
115.Quinn JF. Therapeutic Touch as energy exchange: replication and extension.
Nurs Sci Q.1989;2(2):79-87.Google Scholar 116.Claman HN, Freeman R, Quissel D.
et al. Report of the Chancellor's Committee on Therapeutic Touch. Denver: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; 1994.
117.Butgereit B. Therapeutic Touch: UAB to study controversial treatment for Pentagon.
Birmingham News.November 17, 1994:1A, 10A.Google Scholar 118.Turner JG. Tri-Service Nursing Research Grant Proposal
[revised abstract]. 1994. Grant No. MDA905-94-Z-0080.
119.Turner JG. The Effect of Therapeutic Touch on Pain & Anxiety
in Burn Patients [grant final report]. Tri-Service Nursing Research Program; November 14, 1996. Grant No.
N94020.
120.Lionberger HJ. Therapeutic Touch: a healing modality or a caring strategy. In: Chinn PL, ed. Nursing Research Methodology: Issues and
Implementation. Rockville, Md: Aspen Publishers; 1986:169-180.
121.Lionberger HJ. An Interpretive Study of Nurses' Practice of Therapeutic
Touch [dissertation]. San Francisco: University of California; 1985.
122.Polk SH. Client's Perceptions of Experiences Following the
Intervention Modality of Therapeutic Touch [master's thesis]. Tempe: Arizona State University; 1985.
123.Hamilton-Wyatt GK. Therapeutic Touch: Promoting and Assessing Conceptual
Change Among Health Care Professionals [dissertation]. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1988.
124.Heidt PR. Openness: a qualitative analysis of nurses' and patients' experiences
of Therapeutic Touch.
Image J Nurs Sch.1990;22:180-186.Google Scholar 125.Thomas-Beckett JG. Attitudes Toward Therapeutic Touch: A Pilot Study
of Women With Breast Cancer [master's thesis]. East Lansing: Michigan State University; 1991.
126.Clark AJ, Seifert P. Client perceptions of Therapeutic Touch. Paper presented at: Third Annual West Alabama Conference on Clinical
Nursing Research; 1992.
127.Samarel N. The experience of receiving Therapeutic Touch.
J Adv Nurs.1992;17:651-657.Google Scholar 128.Hughes PP. The Experience of Therapeutic Touch as a Treatment
Modality With Adolescent Psychiatric Patients [master's thesis]. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico; 1994.