Gonçalves · PloS one 2017 · systematic review of randomized controlled trials · n=30 studies

Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review of 30 randomized controlled trials

PubMed 29049421 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186539 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review was conducted across seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Scielo) to evaluate randomized controlled trials of religious and spiritual interventions (RSIs) targeting physical health outcomes or quality of life in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. Studies involving distant interventions (e.g., intercessory prayer) or psychiatric disorders were excluded. Methodological quality was appraised using the Cochrane Back Review Group scale.

What was found

Thirty randomized controlled trials were included, covering chronic patients, healthy individuals, and healthcare professionals. Interventions used a psychotherapy approach in 40% of studies, and control groups most frequently used educational interventions (56.7%). Study quality averaged 6.83 out of 11 (SD = 9.08). High divergence in scales and protocols prevented a meta-analysis. Qualitative synthesis identified small effect sizes favoring RSIs for quality of life and pain, and very small effect sizes for physical activity, health behavior promotion, and clinical practice of healthcare professionals. No evidence of benefit was found for cardiac measures or protocol satisfaction (no numerical effect sizes or confidence intervals reported in the abstract).

Why it matters

The review synthesizes randomized trial evidence for religious and spiritual practices, demonstrating modest improvements in subjective endpoints like pain and quality of life while showing an absence of clear effects on objective physiological markers.

Limits

Substantial heterogeneity in protocols and outcome measures prevented meta-analytic pooling. Specific effect sizes and confidence intervals are not provided in the abstract, and few included trials evaluated objective biological outcomes.

Cited by