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.

Research Notes

Landmark early systematic review of distant healing in a major medical journal (Annals of Internal Medicine), providing the quantitative baseline (d = 0.40) against which later meta-analyses by Schmidt, Roe, and Masters would be compared. Co-authored by Edzard Ernst, later known as a prominent CAM critic, lending credibility to the cautiously positive findings. Central to Controversy #5 (distant healing/prayer).

Systematic review of 23 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (N = 2,774 patients) examining the efficacy of distant healing — prayer, Therapeutic Touch, and other distant healing modalities — for medical conditions. Studies were identified through five databases searched through 1999. Of the 23 trials, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant positive treatment effects, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative effect. Average weighted effect sizes were d = 0.25 for prayer (P = 0.009), d = 0.63 for Therapeutic Touch (P = 0.003), and d = 0.38 for other distant healing (P = 0.073). The overall effect size across 16 evaluator-blinded trials was d = 0.40 (P < 0.001). The authors conclude methodological limitations prevent definitive conclusions but the evidence 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},
}