Reiki for Whole Person Care: Case Studies in Oncology Patients, a Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Reiki has been introduced as part of the complementary therapy program for oncology patients in two major university hospitals to which our institution is affiliated, with the objective to provide whole person care. Reiki is a deep relaxation technique that promotes balance, healing and harmony in all aspects of the person – body, mind, emotions and spirit. A Reiki session is given using very light or no touch on a fully clothed individual, sitting or lying down. Reiki is best understood by actually experiencing a session.The objective of this preliminary study is to document how Reiki can support and benefit oncology patients in facing the day-to-day challenges related to their illness.Methodology: Weekly Reiki sessions lasting from 20 to 60 minutes have been conducted with adult patients. Inclusion criteria: any patient living with cancer: all stages, from pre-diagnosis to diagnosis, ongoing treatment (in and out-patients), post-treatment and palliative care. Data has been collected using a questionnaire and a symptom scale, before and after sessions, as applicable. Qualitative experiences from palliative care patients will also be obtained from staff and family caregivers.Results: Preliminary results after each session indicate a significant reduction of anxiety and stress, in addition to improving regulation of pain, fatigue, emotional state, and digestive issues. Patients commonly express a feeling of serenity, calmness, and peace. Qualitative results will be presented.Conclusion: Data collected so far suggests that Reiki as a complementary therapy, improves overall quality of life for patients. A more relaxed and less anxious patient facilitates the intervention of medical staff and lightens the efforts of caregivers and family. Closer communication between the medical and complementary therapies staff can manifestly enrich the whole person care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".