Nurses’ ability of providing the interpersonal and comforting touch could be impaired by the contemporarily fast-paced, high-acuity and understaffed hospital-centered setting (Connor & Howett, 2009). Nursing is one of the few roles in contemporary society in which the physical contact and even of the intimate body is accepted (Green, 2013). The frequent touch nurses encounter in patient care, however, is not always the deliberated and intentioned one of enhancing care (Connor & Howett, 2009). A stressful environment hinders nurses from achieving a state of therapists’ inner balance to perform tactile touch at hospitals (Henricson et al., 2006). In the absence of a quiet and an independent ...view middle of the document...
(2010) suggest that financial support, more emphasis from conventional staff on healing administration and voluntary healer self-regulation would cast a positive effect on facilitating the incorporation of healing into conventional care.建议里
Ethics: Gleeson & Timmins (2005) argue that the ad hoc use of non-necessary touch should be avoided. Ethical dilemmas are obviously persistent in touch-related therapies. Gender difference is one of the factors that influence not only the acceptance of touch, but also the performance (Gleeson & Timmins, 2005), and this disadvantage is explicitly related to tactile touch. Skovdahl et al. (2007) conducted the same intervention of tactile touch by using of the term ‘tactile simulation’ on elder patients with dementia; they found that receiver’s feeling of being respected as a human being is closely related to some relational ethics perspectives. An interpretive phenomenology study by Airosa etal. (2013) noted that a fine line between intimacy, sexuality and sensuality is difficult to deal with during tactile massage, especially for male patients, who expressed feelings of guilt, shame and ambivalence after treatment. It would be easier for receivers to consider tactile touch as a nursing tool which has measurable effects instead of a non-necessary touch (Skovdahl et al., 2007). Further, unwanted touch from an unestablished relationship triggers feelings of being violated and disrespected (Salzmann-erikson, 2005). Skovdahl et al. (2007) suggest that caregivers need to be able to interpret receiver’s willingness and unwillingness to accept this intervention. Henricson et al.(2006) suggested that building up a sense of reciprocal trust by showing unconditional respect for patients’ integrity and preferences is crucial before tactile touch intervention.
Huff et al. (2006) consider that the major reason for the lack of availability of TT is the dearth of conclusive scientific evidence to support its efficacy. Before TT is legitimated as a clinic treatment protocol, people who would like to utilize it tend to believe it works rather than because it actually works (Huff et al., 2006). Therapeutic touch also does not appear to be effective on every individual. Clinical practice varies on different patients with the same diagnosis, whereas even conventional therapies could not be proven to be effective for all patients (Dossey, 2003). Leder & Krucoff (2008) suggested that patients’ self-roles for touch healing should also be of importance: the judicious choice of a therapist，along with self-hope, patience and engaged surrender would increase the readiness and openness for patients to receive the healing touch. Vickers (2008) advises that pre-education regarding the basic principles is also imperative in order to gain permission, particularly for psychiatric patients. Discussion
Conclusions of clinical effects of two touch therapies
Literatures reviewed in this article suggest that...