Basic HTML Version
EFFECTIVENESS OF HYPNOTHERAPY WITH CANCER PATIENTS 343
Table 2
Clinical Hypnosis and Cancer Pain in Studies from 1999–2006
Authors
N
A/P Design Manual Hypnotizability
measures
Results / Comments
Liossi and
Hatira
(1999)
30 LP
P RCT N
Y
•
Wild and Espie (2004) ranked this study 2+ (“well-conducted
case control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding
or bias and a moderate possibility that the relationship is
causal” p. 154).
•
Pain and distress were significantly less in hypnosis and the
CBT group than in the control and their own baseline record-
ings. There was no significant difference between the two
groups.
•
Number of subjects is small (10 in each group).
Liossi and
White
(2001)
50Outpatients
palliative
care
A RCT Y
N
•
Patients in the hypnosis group had significant better global
quality of life, and less anxiety and depression than the
standard treatment group. Hypnosis did not enhance
physical quality of life and physical activity.
•
Selected group of patients that could fill the outcome
questionnaires.
Liossi and
Hatira
(2003)
80 BMA
P RCT Y
Y
•
Only one therapist administered treatment. It might imply
limitations on generalization of results.
•
Direct and indirect suggestions are well described and were
found equally effective.
•
Manualized intervention.
•
Adherence for treatment fidelity.
•
Correlation of hypnotizability with treatment outcome.
•
Only 20 subjects in each group.
Notes
: A = Adult; P = Pediatric; LP = Lumbar puncture; RCT = randomized clinical trial; Y = Yes; N = No; BMA = Bone Marrow Aspiration.
Downloaded by [ ] at 02:21 27 March 2012