I was recently reading about a new Reiki study going on at the University of Southern Maine, and while in many ways I think its a great idea, I find this particular study fraught with problems resulting from an apparent lack of knowledge about Reiki itself. The article, from the 9/29/08 issue of the USM Free Press is fairly short so here it is in its entirety:

While some scientists are busy inventing the latest gadget to transform the healthcare market, Nancy Richeson may as well be stepping into a time machine.

The USM associate professor is about to embark on a study involving an age-old, holistic approach to healing known as Reiki. Funded by the College of Nursing and Health Professions, the research focuses on older adults who experience pain, depression, and anxiety.

“I’ve gotten hundreds upon hundreds of phone calls,” says Richeson, her phone ringing in the background. “Some of them for some reason can’t handle medication, or a medical professional can’t help them.”

Originating in Japan, Reiki made its way over to the western world around the 1920s. It is a form of healing centered around light touch. But do not mistake it for your average massage – the focus is not on physical muscle tension, but plying and transforming the metaphysical “energies” of the body.

There will be two different groups. An “intervention” group will be receiving Reiki treatment while the “control” group waits. After eight weeks, they swap places.

Richeson, along with Katherin Lutz, a graduate student and registered nurse, will also be monitoring blood pressures and heart rates in an effort to find if Reiki treatment produces a physiological response on the part of participants.

Though Reiki is now being provided in some hospitals around the country, it is not free, and insurance companies do not cover sessions, as far as Richeson knows.

She began receiving treatments at the behest of a friend years ago, only to begin studying it herself in 2001.  There are three levels of training, the first being a regiment of “self-healing”.

The second level is where students begin work on others, as well as tackling an approach known as “long distance Reiki,” in which the practitioner attempts to work on limited ailments from afar.

It was at this stage that Richeson co-founded a clinic in Kennebunk.  She completed the third and final stage, becoming a Reiki Master, this past January.

“It’s really a self-Journey, and it depends on where you are at.

I spent a lot of time as a level one trying to make sure that I was really good at it.”

The Study, which is now closed to new participants, will take place over the next sixteen weeks.

While the free treatment may have been a factor in the overwhelming response, those who failed to make the cut needn’t despair – once a month, Recheson operates a free clinic out of her office in Kennebunk.

Inaccuracies

Perhaps the misspelling of Reiki in the title of the article, (“High-Energy Healing – Nancy Richeson brings science to the art of reike“) got me off on the wrong foot… but that wasn’t the only problem I found with it. The article says that “Reiki made its way over to the western world around the 1920s.” which is also inaccurate… it made its way over to the Western World in the summer of 1937. Touting Reiki as an “age-old, holistic approach to healing” also shows a lack of understanding, and whether this is the fault of the writer or the provider of the information, of course is unclear. These are minor points, but journalistic integrity should account for something… do these types of things take more than 5 minutes to check?

I’ve also never heard of Reiki Level 1 being about self-healing while Level 2 is about healing others. This must either be a style of Reiki that I am not familiar with… or another inaccuracy.

The Study

If I’m understanding this correctly, what they have in mind is to separate a group of people into 2 groups and give Reiki to one while the other waits and after 8 weeks they switch places. During this time they will monitor heart rates and blood pressure. Perhaps an incredible amount of information has been left out here, but I really don’t see this as doing much at all besides possibly determining the effect of Reiki heart rates and blood pressure. Again, a lot of information is left out here, like how many people are involved in the study, how many Reiki practitioners are involved (and what their level of experience and effectiveness is), how much Reiki are they being exposed to, what kind of conditions are being treated, how is the control group being “shielded” from Reiki during the trials, how are the results being determined, etc.

This set me to thinking about how a clinical trial in Reiki might be performed. First of all, the Reiki practitioner needs to be removed from management of the study itself, otherwise the results are not valid. Validity and reliability are the two main considerations in any such study, and for the subject (yes the Reiki Practitioner is just as much as subject of the study as the participants) to be in charge of the study, both of these considerations are thrown out the window. Therefore an independent party needs to be in charge, from the screening of the patients clear through to statistical determination of the validity of the results.

Next I would create a rubric of symptoms, physical, mental and emotional (perhaps spiritual as well) to look at. Patients would have to then be objectively assessed on each of the areas that are being studied (of course these would be hidden in the questions as to not expose to the participants what is being looked studied). Finding objective areas to assess would prove difficult, but a sufficient list could be formulated that would adequately suit the purposes of the study if done correctly. Experts from the medical, psychiatric, statistics, science and sociology departments would all need to be involved (all of which are available at USM).Then the purposes of the study could be carried out in a professional, valid and reliable way.

I’m not sure which of the above steps have been taken in the creation of this study, but if the inaccuracies of the article are any example, then the lack of professionalism gives me cause for concern.

For further explanation or discussion, your thoughts are most welcome and highly encouraged, please feel free to comment below!!!