Therapeutic Touch and Biofield Therapies: Evidence Review

What these terms mean

"Biofield therapy" is a group name for practices in which a practitioner is said to work with a human energy field, by light touch or by holding hands near the body. Reiki is one example; see Reiki: what it is and what research shows. Therapeutic Touch (TT) is another. A review of therapeutic touch research notes that TT has been part of holistic nursing practice for nearly 50 years. [1] Other names grouped with them in cancer-care reviews include Healing Touch and Polarity Therapy. [2]

The idea of an energy field is a traditional and practice-based explanation, not a measured biological structure. As NCCIH says of Reiki, there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the energy field thought to play a role. [3] We found no equivalent NCCIH page we could read for Therapeutic Touch itself, so the statement about the field is attributed to the Reiki page only.

How practitioners describe it

Practitioners in the nursing literature describe TT as a healing approach. In one paper, TT practitioners took part in group dialogues from 2010 to 2016 to develop a practice-based theory of healing. [1] This tells us how practitioners understand their work, not whether it has a measurable effect.

What research shows

The table sets out each finding and how strong it is.

1. Pain (touch therapies including TT, Healing Touch and Reiki)

   Promising but limited (an older review, 2008)

   Cochrane review of 24 studies (16 on TT): pain about 0.83 points lower on a 0 to 10 scale than comparison; authors concluded a modest effect and asked for more research [4]

2. Clinical uses (pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea, function)

   Insufficient evidence

   Rapid evidence assessment of 21 TT studies including 15 randomized trials (1,302 patients): 18 reported positive outcomes, but only four had low risk of bias; no high-quality evidence for any claimed benefit [5]

3. Cancer-treatment side effects (Reiki, TT, Healing Touch, Polarity)

   No good evidence of benefit in better-controlled studies

   Systematic review of 21 publications (1,375 patients): higher-quality studies found no difference from placebo, massage, relaxation or usual care; only low-quality studies showed significant effects [2]

4. Palliative care (Reiki and TT)

   Insufficient evidence

   Nine studies (415 people): improvements reported in some symptoms, but very low certainty of evidence precludes firm conclusions [6]

5. Anxiety and depression in cancer

   Preclinical to preliminary

   Review of integrative options lists biofield therapies among emerging therapies with preliminary evidence, not yet included in guideline recommendations [7]

Notice the pattern. Small studies often report benefit; better-controlled studies tend not to. Practices where the person knows they are being treated also depend on expectation and the comfort of attention. The Cochrane review did explore the placebo effect and did not identify a statistically significant one in its analysis, but its authors also called for more studies. [4]

Benefits and limits

Any relaxation or comfort a person feels is real, and that may be worth something to you. But no source we read shows that biofield therapy treats an illness, shrinks a tumor or replaces treatment.

Who should get medical care first

Anyone with new, severe or unexplained symptoms, anyone in cancer treatment who is thinking of skipping or changing it, and anyone in a mental health crisis (US: call 911, or 988). Tell your care team about any practice you use. See talking with a health professional.