{"title":"Intercessory Prayer for ill Health: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Roberts, Ahmed, Hall, Sargent, Adams","doi":"10.1159/000057115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of prayer as an additional intervention for those with health problems already receiving standard medical care. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic Searches of Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EM-BASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, and Sociofile were undertaken. All references of articles selected were searched for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of personal, focused, committed and organised intercessory prayer on behalf of anyone with a health problem were considered. Outcomes such as achievement of desired goals, death, illness, quality of life and well-being for the recipients of prayer, those praying and the caregivers were sought. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Data were extracted by 4 reviewers working independently. Dichotomous data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, and continuous data with over 50% completion rate are presented. MAIN RESULTS: There was no evidence that prayer affected the numbers of people dying from leukaemia or heart disease (OR 0.64, CI 0.32-1.27), or that it decreased coronary care complications (OR 1.05, CI 0.49-2.26) or the time participants stayed in hospital. There were significantly fewer 'intermediat//poor outcomes' for those with heart disease in the prayed-for group (OR 0.49, CI 0.30-0.80), and this finding was robust to some changes in definition. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides no guidance for those wishing to uphold or refute the effect of intercessory prayer on the outcomes studied in the available trials. Therefore, in the light of the best available data, there are no grounds to change current practices. There are very few completed trials of the value of intercessory prayer. The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study. If prayer is seen as a human endeavour it may or may not be beneficial, and further trials could uncover this. It could be the case that any effects are due to elements beyond present scientific understanding that will, in time, be understood. If any benefit derives from God's response to prayer it may be beyond any such trials to prove or disprove.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"5 Suppl S1 ","pages":"82-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057115","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of prayer as an additional intervention for those with health problems already receiving standard medical care. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic Searches of Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EM-BASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, and Sociofile were undertaken. All references of articles selected were searched for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of personal, focused, committed and organised intercessory prayer on behalf of anyone with a health problem were considered. Outcomes such as achievement of desired goals, death, illness, quality of life and well-being for the recipients of prayer, those praying and the caregivers were sought. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Data were extracted by 4 reviewers working independently. Dichotomous data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, and continuous data with over 50% completion rate are presented. MAIN RESULTS: There was no evidence that prayer affected the numbers of people dying from leukaemia or heart disease (OR 0.64, CI 0.32-1.27), or that it decreased coronary care complications (OR 1.05, CI 0.49-2.26) or the time participants stayed in hospital. There were significantly fewer 'intermediat//poor outcomes' for those with heart disease in the prayed-for group (OR 0.49, CI 0.30-0.80), and this finding was robust to some changes in definition. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides no guidance for those wishing to uphold or refute the effect of intercessory prayer on the outcomes studied in the available trials. Therefore, in the light of the best available data, there are no grounds to change current practices. There are very few completed trials of the value of intercessory prayer. The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study. If prayer is seen as a human endeavour it may or may not be beneficial, and further trials could uncover this. It could be the case that any effects are due to elements beyond present scientific understanding that will, in time, be understood. If any benefit derives from God's response to prayer it may be beyond any such trials to prove or disprove.
目的:回顾祈祷作为已经接受标准医疗护理的健康问题的额外干预的有效性。检索策略:电子检索生物文摘、CINAHL、Cochrane对照试验注册、EM-BASE、MEDLINE、PsycLIT和Sociofile。检索所有入选文献的参考文献,以寻找进一步的相关试验。选择标准:随机和准随机试验的个人,集中,承诺和有组织的代祷代表任何有健康问题的考虑。结果,如实现预期目标,死亡,疾病,生活质量和福祉的祈祷接受者,祈祷者和照顾者被寻求。资料收集和分析:可靠地选择研究并评估方法学质量。数据由4名独立审稿人提取。在意向治疗的基础上分析二分数据,并提供完成率超过50%的连续数据。主要结果:没有证据表明祈祷会影响死于白血病或心脏病的人数(or 0.64, CI 0.32-1.27),也没有证据表明祈祷会减少冠心病并发症(or 1.05, CI 0.49-2.26)或参与者住院时间。祈祷组心脏病患者的“中间/不良结局”显著减少(OR 0.49, CI 0.30-0.80),这一发现对于定义的一些变化是稳健的。结论:对于那些希望支持或反驳代祷对现有试验研究结果的影响的人,本综述没有提供任何指导。因此,根据现有的最佳数据,没有理由改变目前的做法。对于代祷的价值,很少有完全的试炼。目前提出的证据很有趣,值得进一步研究。如果祈祷被视为一种人类的努力,它可能是有益的,也可能不是有益的,进一步的试验可能会揭示这一点。可能的情况是,任何影响都是由于目前科学理解之外的因素造成的,这些因素迟早会被理解。如果上帝对祷告的回应有任何益处,那可能是任何这样的试验都无法证明或否定的。