Title |
Research on Intercessory Prayer: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Religion and Health, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10943-015-0172-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Paulo Rogério Dalla Colletta de Aguiar, Tiago Pires Tatton-Ramos, Letícia Oliveira Alminhana |
Abstract |
Belief in the healing power of prayer is found in various religious traditions. Spiritually grounded clinical interventions, such as intercessory prayer (IP), need to be understood in a broader sense. This essay features the IP trials, observing the controversial relationship between inconsistent results and allegedly inadequate methods and theoretical hypothesis. A survey of the literature was conducted including publications indexed until September 2013, focusing on the trials developed in the field and on the critics about the methodological design. Recent meta-analyses and multicenter studies found inconclusive results in the investigation of IP. Clinical trials on IP present some methodological difficulties: The intervention is not fully controlled; the primary outcome is not properly defined; and the theoretical models seem inconsistent. The "non-local consciousness" model may be appropriate for studies of IP. Directions for future research: greater emphasis on the evaluation of the effectiveness of this intervention in animal models; selection of subjects and healers who have previous connection; considering the hypothesis of non-local consciousness in the study design. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 25% |
United States | 2 | 13% |
Germany | 2 | 13% |
Russia | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 11 | 69% |
Scientists | 3 | 19% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 5 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 9% |
Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
Other | 8 | 24% |
Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 7 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 18% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 8 | 24% |