Potter, P.J. (2007). Breast biopsy and distress: Feasibility of testing a Reiki intervention. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25, 238–248.

To determine the feasibility of testing Reiki, a complementary therapy intervention, for women undergoing breast biopsy

A two-group study design was used: conventional care group (CCG) and Reiki intervention group (RIG). The intervention (Reiki treatment lasting 45–50 minutes) was delivered at the local complementary therapy office. The Reiki treatments were given on two occasions: one within seven days of biopsy and one within seven days following biopsy. Six trained Reiki practitioners delivered the Reiki treatments.

• The study reported on a sample of 32 participants: 17 in the RIG and 15 in the CCG.
• Mean age in the RIG was 52 years (SD = 8.86; range = 37–75 years); mean age in the CCG was 51 years (SD = 6.19; range = 39–61 years).
• The sample was 100% female.
• All women were undergoing diagnostic breast biopsy.
• The majority of the sample was Caucasian (13 [76%] in RIG and 13 [87%] in CCG); the remainder self-described as African American, Hispanic, and other.

• Multisite
• Outpatient setting
• Sample was recruited from five different ambulatory sites.

Patients were undergoing the diagnostic phase of care.

A randomized controlled trial design was used.

• Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
• Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)
• Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

Neither group displayed significant amounts of distress (as operationalized by the three measures) either before or after breast biopsy. Likewise, there were not significant differences in any of the measures between groups (RIG and CCG) over time. Over time (pre to post breast biopsy), there were significant decreases for both groups in the A-state (F (2) = 4.78, p = 0.0119), HADS total (F (1) = 6.18, p = 0.0187), and HADS anxiety subscale (F (1) = 12.96, p = 0.0011).

The study did not conclude that Reiki was an effective intervention for reducing biopsy-related distress.

• The study had a small sample size, with less than 30 participants.
• The lack of investigator blinding had an associated risk of bias.
• Sampling and data collection time points were not clear from the report.
• Data collection procedures for the CCG were not explained, and it was unclear who was interviewed (both groups or only RIG) or why.
• Study is stated to be a randomized controlled trial, but it seemed to be rather a pilot to determine the feasibility of the Reiki intervention with this group.
• The small sample had insufficient power to determine group difference or efficacy on the intervention in reducing biopsy-related anxiety and depression.
• Table 2 lists the three reported measures (STAI, CES-D, and HADS) but then also reports data on anxiety and depression. However, it is not clear what this data came from.
• The intervention was provided by multiple practitioners, with possible treatment variations.

Simple complementary interventions integrated within the clinical setting (thus not requiring patients to commit to off-site interventions) should be considered. Effective ways to recruit and maintain enrollment in clinical trials of complementary therapies should continue to be investigated.