>" I think the evidence is that conventional medicine can learn a lot
>from the way confident, caring practitioners outside the mainstream
>relate to their clients, how these clients are empowered and how
>they gain in confidence. We have *tons* of good,
>biologically-plausible, testable evidence of the immense value of
>touch and human connection, emotional and physical. I think it is
>vastly more likely that this is what is 'working' - when it 'works'
>. Heather Welford Neil NCT bfc, tutor, UK" Okay. Is this statement
>testable?
Yes - you give dummy/sham treatment to babies in one group, and
actual treatment to the babies in the other group, with no difference
between the mode of interaction except this.
> Can psychological impact be subjected to double blind studies? If
>so, how would you design a CST study that differentiates between any
>physical benefit and any psychological benefit?
This would be difficult, especially with crying/fussy/sleepless
babies and stressed parents. But yes, psychological impact is
testable, with objective measures which relate to parents'
self-reported effects (stress index, parent daily hassles
index....there are a few of these about).
One interesting study
http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/23/adc.2010.199877.abstract
into the effects of cranial osteopathy on children with cerebral
palsy found no objective improvement in the group who had had the
treatment, compared to the group who had not (they did not have sham
treatment either - no treatment at all)....not one improvement in
motor skils, quality of life, and no improvement in carers' quality
of life, either etc.
But the parents of the treated children thought there *were*
differences - vague, unspecified and 'global'. One might say 'oh
well, if the parents believed the kids showed some improvement, even
if they couldn't say what it was, then obviously something has worked
and even if it hasn't worked, then it's ok for people to delude
themselves'. Or one might say 'this is a fairly strong indication
that just being treated makes people believe that something improves,
and it may well not be an improvement, and actually it's not ok for
people to delude themselves.'
>For example, acupuncture has been tested by having some patients
>receiving real acupuncture and some receiving real acupuncture
>needles at fake points, and the real acupuncture has won.
Indeed - some studies do show this, but others do not. Not all are
well-designed, but it is difficult to do a well-designed fully
blinded study. A major study
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=413107 found
real and sham to give the same (positive) results in relieving pain,
which indicates a role of placebo. Another study
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=414934 showed
similar positive results for both.
Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc, tutor,UK
--
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
