Bernie Garrett

Background: The growing popularity and affordability of immersive virtual reality (VR), as adjunctive non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) for chronic pain, has resulted in increasing research, with mixed results of its effectiveness reported. This randomized controlled superiority trial explored the effects of a home-based adjunctive 3D VR NPI for chronic pain in cancer patients, compared to the same NPI experienced through a two-dimensional (2D) medium. Methods: The NPI used four different applications experienced for 30 min for six days a week at home for four weeks using established cognitive distraction and mindfulness meditation techniques. Participants were randomly assigned (N = 110) into two arms: a VR group (n = 57) where the NPI was delivered through a VR system, and a control group (n = 53) which used a computer screen for delivery. Participants were blinded to which arm of the study they were in, and sequence of the NPI applications experienced was randomized. Primary outcomes of daily pre/post/during exposure, and weekly average pain scores were assessed via the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and secondary outcomes of weekly Quality of Life (SF-12), and sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) were measured. Results: Findings indicate VR applications were not significantly superior to the 2D group, but both VR and control NPIs provided clinically important pain reduction for participants when experiencing significant daily pain of a VAS ≥ 4. No significant adverse effects were encountered, although many of the participants in the VR group reported some cybersickness in certain applications (VR group n = 46 vs 2D group n = 28). Conclusions: Overall, VR did not provide superiority as an NPI for pain relief compared to 2D computer-based applications. For those experiencing significant pain, cognitive distractive applications appeared superior for VR-based pain reduction during exposure, whilst meditative applications supplied better pain relief post-exposure. Findings from this trial support some clinical efficacy of home-based VR immersive experiences as NPIs for chronic cancer-related pain but in this context the 2D computer-based applications demonstrated similar value. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02995434, registered 2017–07-31.

Alternative healthcare is growing in popularity, but like all healthcare, the use of such therapies is not risk-free. Dr Bernie Garrett of the University of British Colombia, Canada, works with colleague Professor Timothy Caulfield from the University of Alberta, to provide a voice of reason in the world of alternative medicine. While trying to understand what makes people choose these options, they are also shedding light on the risks associated with using such unconventional treatments.

This paper builds on prior work exploring the use of risk-associated alternative healthcare (RAAH) in Canada. RAAH uptake was surveyed to explore the characteristics of adult RAAH users and the value of established psychometric instruments previously used in alternative healthcare studies in predicting RAAH behaviours: the Control Beliefs Inventory (CBI), the Reward Responsiveness Behavioural Activation System (RBAS) scale, the Positive Attitudes to Science (PAS) scale, the Satisfaction with Orthodox Medicine (SOM) scale, and the brief version of the Susceptibility to Persuasion-II (StP-II-B) scale. Findings suggest RAAH is influenced by gender, age, income, education, employment, chronic illness status, and ethnicity. Engagement in some form of RAAH was common (around 40%) and the most common types of RAAH use reported were physical manipulation and herbal/nutritional supplement use. Other higher-risk AH activities (such as use of toxins and physically invasive procedures) were also reported by about 5% of respondents. The StP-II-B and PAS instruments were predictive of the likelihood of engagement in RAAH behaviours, as illustrated by higher risk tolerance, desire for novelty, positive attitude to advertising and social influence, and positive beliefs about science. The CBI, RBAS, and SOM instruments were not predictive overall. However, the CBI and SOM instruments were predictive of engagement with physical manipulative RAAH activities, while the RBAS was predictive of herbal/nutritional RAAH engagement. These findings can help inform health professionals’ understanding of public health-seeking behaviours with respect to risk.

Background: Mindfulness-based stress reduction has demonstrated some efficacy for chronic pain management. More recently, virtual reality (VR)–guided meditation has been used to assist mindfulness-based stress reduction. Although studies have also found electroencephalograph (EEG) changes in the brain during mindfulness meditation practices, such changes have not been demonstrated during VR-guided meditation. Objective: This exploratory study is designed to explore the potential for recording and analyzing EEG during VR experiences in terms of the power of EEG waveforms, topographic mapping, and coherence. We examine how these measures changed during a VR-guided meditation experience in participants with cancer-related chronic pain. Methods: A total of 10 adult patients with chronic cancer pain underwent a VR-guided meditation experience while EEG signals were recorded during the session using a BioSemi ActiveTwo system (64 channels, standard 10-20 configuration). The EEG recording session consisted of an 8-minute resting condition (pre), a 30-minute sequence of 3 VR-guided meditation conditions (med), and a final rest condition (post). Power spectral density (PSD) was compared between each condition using a cluster-based permutation test and across conditions using multivariate analysis of variance. A topographic analysis, including coherence exploration, was performed. In addition, an exploratory repeated measures correlation was used to examine possible associations between pain scores and EEG signal power. Results: The predominant pattern was for increased β and γ bandwidth power in the meditation condition (P<.025), compared with both the baseline and postexperience conditions. Increased power in the  bandwidth was evident, although not statistically significant. The pre versus post comparison also showed changes in the θ and α bands (P=.02) located around the frontal, central, and parietal cortices. Across conditions, multivariate analysis of variance tests identified 4 clusters with significant (P<.05) PSD differences in the δ, θ, β, and γ bands located around the frontal, central, and parietal cortices. Topographically, 5 peak channels were identified: AF7, FP2, FC1, CP5, and P5, and verified the changes in power in the different brain regions. Coherence changes were observed primarily between the frontal, parietal, and occipital regions in the θ, α, and γ bands (P<.0025). No significant associations were observed between pain scores and EEG PSD. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of EEG recording in exploring neurophysiological changes in brain activity during VR-guided meditation and its effect on pain reduction. These findings suggest that distinct altered neurophysiological brain signals are detectable during VR-guided meditation. However, these changes were not necessarily associated with pain. These exploratory findings may guide further studies to investigate the highlighted regions and EEG bands with respect to VR-guided meditation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00102401; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00102401

Defining alternative health care and the recording of associated adverse events and harm remains problematic. This Canadian study aimed to establish and classify risk-associated alternative health practices in a Delphi study undertaken with an interdisciplinary panel of 17 health experts in 2020. It provides a new functional definition of alternative health care and an initial taxonomy of risk-associated alternative health care practices. A number of risk-associated practices were identified and categorized into general practices that conflict with biomedical care or largely untested therapies, alternative beliefs systems, physical manipulative alternative therapies, and herbal and nutritional supplements. Some risk significant harms including major physical injuries or even death. The lack of systematic methods for recording adverse events in alternative health care makes establishing the frequency of such events challenging. However, it is important that people engaging with alternative health care understand they are not necessarily risk-free endeavours, and what those risks are.

In this paper, the historical alignment of nursing with divinity‐based perspectives and modern New Age nursing theories are explored. The nature of divinity in nursing is examined, together with the complexities and issues that arise in adopting a spiritual basis for care. The work of the key theorists in this area (Rogers, Newman, Parse, Watson, Dossey) is reconsidered and fundamental epistemological problems inherent in this approach reviewed. Specific concerns with the interpretation of holistic care, adoption of doxastic logic, faith‐based rationales, influence of Caucasian Judeo‐Christian and New Age values, misappropriation of science, use of pseudoscience and development of divinity as social consumer product are discussed. Practical problems with using a spiritual basis in contemporary nursing practice are also explored and the alignment of divinity‐based nursing theories with the modern antiscience movement is examined. Overall, the re‐emergence of divinity‐based nursing and spiritual basis for care may be problematic, and would seem to counter the development of an inclusive profession. Additionally, the alignment of nursing with antiscience movements rejecting biomedicine has significant public health implications. This is argued as a regressive step for the advancement of the profession.

Aim: To synthesize the most recent evidence investigating the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch as a complementary therapy in clinical health applications.Design: A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines.Methods: CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009–March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea and functional improvement.Results: Twenty‐one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized‐controlled trials, four quasi‐experimental studies, one chart review study and one mixed methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered and scored as low‐quality studies. No high‐quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.