↓ Skip to main content

Research on Intercessory Prayer: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Religion and Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,945,227
of 25,358,192 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Religion and Health
#104
of 1,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,795
of 406,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Religion and Health
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,358,192 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.