The experimental study examined the safety, elements, and effects of Healing Touch (HT). Twenty three recipients were required to have had abdominal surgery at least four weeks prior to admission to the study and be in continuing pain they associated with the surgery. More than half of the subjects had been in pain more than a year after surgery, one for 9 years and 9 months.

Each received three different treatments given an separate days: Healing Touch given by an experienced practitioner, HT given by a naive provider, and an interview. The order of treatments was selected randomly. Treatments given by HT and naive providers were identical. Each was a combination of standard HT techniques called magnetic unruffling and wound sealing. The interview was a placebo control to determine if HT is more than just a nurse paying attention to a person in pain. Quantitative changes in perceived pain before and after treatments were measured by the Melzack Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and qualitative data about providers' and recipients' experiences were obtained and analyzed using content analysis.

All three treatments were found to be safe for recipients and providers, but the naive providers had more discomfort than the HT providers. Recipients experienced more nausea, headaches, dizziness, and drowsiness after HT than after the naive treatment. The treatments were uncomfortable for some, but not unsafe.

Quantitative results indicated there was no significant difference in changes in pain perception after HT and naive treatments but that the naive treatment was evaluated as being preferred. The interview was followed by less pain relief than after HT or the naive treatment, indicating that HT is not simply related to the nurse's presence and attention to the subject.

Qualitative data contradicted quantitative data. Subjects reported more relaxation and pain relief after HT than the naive treatment. The confusing results may indicate that the MPQ differentiates between dimensions of pain, that people in pain may evaluate their pain on criteria other than pain sensations.

Other conclusions were (1) that naive providers should not be used in HT research; they have not been trained to protect themselves from uncomfortable experiences during treatments, (2) If the naive providers in some manner experienced discomfort because they were touching a person in pain, nurses in ordinary clinical settings may have similar effects, (3) HT given by an experienced and a naive provider results in essentially the same pain relief, and (4) HT may tap into a natural human ability that training can both enhance and interfere with.

Were results due to hand motions alone, the nature of the providers, the nature of the research situation, is HT a complex ritual, were the effects due exclusively to the recipients' resting and/or being touched, a combination of factors, or an unknown influence? Further research is needed.