anyone do a PICO paper about Reiki? - page 2
I am starting a EBP paper for graduate project and I am trying to come up with topics. I was thinking along the lines of Reiki and pain relief. Just wondering if anyone has any good info. reiki seems... Read More
Aug 15, '11 by Double-Helix, BSNThere is no such thing as a double blind study for Reiki. A double blind study means that both the participant and the practioner (researcher/examiner/doctor, what have you) is not aware of who is the control group and who is not.
In a Reiki study, the participant knows whether or not he/she is receiving Reiki therapy. Likewise, the person performing the therapy also knows which group the patient is in.
Furthermore, there are many standard medical interventions that have not been proven by double blind studies. For example, the practice of turning a bed bound patient every two hours is the standard in nearly every hospital. Did you know that practice is based on the results of ONE study? One small research project that became the standard for pressure ulcer prevention. Many hospitals rotate IV sites every 3-4 days. This has been the standard for many years. Even though there wasn't evidence to support that this reduced IV complications and new studies are showing that leaving an IV in until a problem arises is actually the best way to go. If you want all your nursing interventions to be supported by double blind studies, you'll have a hard time in nursing school.
I would understand your concern if I have ever encountered it. However I've never seen a Reiki practioner (in an acute care hospital, no less) suggest that Reiki be used as an alternative to conventional medicine. Reiki is used primarily to treat pain and anxiety, not cure disease. I have never heard of Reiki promoted as a cure or treatment for any kind of illness except for those related to pain and certain psychological issues. In your first post you commented that you hoped that Reiki was not being commonly used in the hospital setting. I highly doubt that Reiki practioners, or doctors, employed by hospitals are encouraging the patients to leave.
If you don't want to pursue Reiki as a treatment option, that's perfectly fine. And please educate your patients about what Reiki therapy is, if they have an incorrect perception. However, do so in an unbiased way, without letting your feelings about Reiki come through.Last edit by Double-Helix on Aug 15, '11
Aug 15, '11 by mamayogibearIf one is a Reiki practitioner they are morally obliged to ask for consent from anyone prior to practicing Reiki. They are also morally obliged to provide Reiki to anyone who requests it. I don't see how someone could deny a patient who requests Reiki the services of a practitioner if possible. I am not sure if I am thinking of cultural relativism or cultural competency but to me it would be akin to denying a patient a chance to pray with a Chaplain or other spiritual guide. Or similar to telling a patient they have to eat certain food that is against a religious diet because they are hospitalized. Maybe there is something I am not getting here... after all I haven't started nursing school yet.
Aug 15, '11 by onedayitllbemeQuote from Ashley, PICU RNThat makes sense, I will. I guess double blind isn't the right term. I meant the person receiving the treatment didn't know if the person giving it was a actual Reiki practioner or not but just imitating the movements as in the study I posted initially.If you don't want to pursue Reiki as a treatment option, that's perfectly fine. And please educate your patients about what Reiki therapy is, if they have an incorrect perception. However, do so in an unbiased way, without letting your feelings about Reiki come through.
Aug 15, '11 by pmilesWhy don't you look at the peer-reviewed papers that I've mentioned? There are a number of small studies that show significant improvement on a number of hard and soft measures after Reiki treatment.
Perhaps you've only looked at Ernst's paper, in which the authors concluded there was not enough evidence to include Reiki in standard care for any condition. That is true, for a number of reasons, notably that Reiki treatment is not symptom or condition-specific, but rather balancing to the person overall, encouraging ANS down-regulation, thereby optimizing the body's own self-healing mechanisms. One problem with Ernst's conclusions is that you cannot reasonably study something that you don't understand. We can do respectable research into the impact of various CAMs on the human system, but it makes no sense to think that such meaningful research can be done in the same way as pharmaceuticals are studied.
As we wait for the research (and who will fund it?), patients, families, and staff are suffering. A non-invasive, no-risk, low-cost healing practice can help. What is the ethical justification to denying this care to people in need who want it?