NU434's Unit 3 appraisal states, without advocacy, what therapeutic touch claims, what controlled trials and a 1998 detection experiment found, and what remains defensible for a nurse. Searches like "nu 434 unit 3 assignment example", "nu434 unit 3 sample" and "nu434 unit 3 example" land here.
Therapeutic Touch Appraised: An Energy Field Claim That Failed Its Test and a Comfort Practice That Remains
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU434: Holistic Nursing
Unit 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
A model appraisal written for teaching. No patient is described.
The Practice, in Its Practitioners' Terms
Practitioners describe five phases: centering, in which the practitioner becomes calm and focused; assessing the human energy field with the hands held a few inches from the body; clearing the field; rebalancing it; and reassessing. The practice drew on Martha Rogers' Science of Unitary Human Beings, which describes persons as energy fields. Because it was taught in nursing programs for decades, many nurses have met it in school, which makes an honest appraisal a professional matter rather than an outside critique.
Splitting the Claim
The claim has two parts that need different evidence: a mechanism, that practitioners sense and rebalance an energy field, and an outcome, that patients feel less anxiety or pain.
Evidence on the Mechanism
In a 1998 experiment, 21 practitioners placed their hands through a screen, and an investigator held a hand above one of theirs; they were asked to sense which. Across 280 trials they chose correctly 44 percent of the time, below the 50 percent expected by chance (Rosa et al., 1998). If practitioners cannot detect a human energy field, the mechanism the practice rests on is unsupported.
Evidence on Outcomes
A Cochrane review found no reliable evidence that therapeutic touch promotes healing of acute wounds (O'Mathúna, 2016). Small trials report lower anxiety or pain, but most are small, often unblinded, and few compare the practice with mimic touch, in which a person goes through the same motions without intent. Where mimic touch is used, much of the benefit appears in both groups.
Wound healing: Cochrane review; no reliable evidence of benefit; Johns Hopkins level I, quality high for the question.
Anxiety and pain: small trials; mixed results; level II, quality low to moderate; mimic comparisons often absent.
Harms
Direct physical harm is unlikely. The main risk is delay: a patient who believes the practice treats a wound or infection may put off care that works.
What Remains Defensible
Calm attention, a few quiet minutes and gentle presence may comfort some patients, and gains seen with mimic touch suggest that is where much of the benefit lies. If offered, it should be described accurately: as a comfort practice, never as treatment, and never with claims about energy fields that the evidence does not support (American Holistic Nurses Association & American Nurses Association, 2019). A nurse who offers it should also be able to explain, if asked, what the 1998 experiment found, because honesty about evidence is part of respecting a patient's choice.
References
American Holistic Nurses Association & American Nurses Association. (2019). Holistic nursing: Scope and standards of practice (3rd ed.). American Nurses Association.
O'Mathúna, D. P. (2016). Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016(9), CD002766. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002766.pub6
Rosa, L., Rosa, E., Sarner, L., & Barrett, S. (1998). A close look at therapeutic touch. JAMA, 279(13), 1005-1010. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.13.1005
How this NU434 Unit 3 example is structured
Claim, test, verdict, and a careful use: the paper follows that order and labels each part. Neutral, attributed description comes first, since practitioners' own accounts are the evidence of what is claimed. Before any study appears, the paper splits the claim in two, a mechanism, the energy field, and an outcome, such as less anxiety, because the two need different evidence. Mechanism evidence is weighed first and found unsupported. Outcome evidence is graded with the Johns Hopkins evidence levels, a quality rating stated for each trial, and the comparisons with mimic touch are read closely, since a practitioner's calm attention may explain gains the energy account claims for itself. Harms are covered briefly, including delay of effective care. Last, the paper asks what remains defensible: attention and comfort, described to patients accurately and never positioned as treatment.
Get an NU434 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Your section may assign the modality or let you choose one, from music to aromatherapy to Reiki. Either way, share the modality, the prompt and the rubric. What comes back separates claim from outcome, grades each study on a named hierarchy, and closes on the narrowest honest recommendation. First sample free, back in 24-48h, following your own instructions. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
NU434 Unit 3 questions, answered
What if my instructor practices the modality I am appraising?
Appraise it the same way. A fair paper describes the practice respectfully, reports what the studies found, and states limits without scorn, which is the standard any instructor in a holistic course is likely to expect. Accuracy protects you in both directions. If your appraisal concludes the evidence is weak, say so and name the specific studies behind that judgment.
Which evidence hierarchy should the appraisal use?
Whichever your program has taught. Many nursing programs use the Johns Hopkins model, with evidence levels running from experimental studies down to expert opinion and a separate quality rating. Others use GRADE or the hierarchy in their evidence-based practice textbook. Name it in the methods paragraph and apply it to every study, since a hierarchy invoked once and then abandoned reads as decoration.
Does the appraisal need a section on harms?
Yes, even for a practice with little physical risk. Harms include indirect ones: delay of effective treatment, cost, and a patient misled about what a session does. For therapeutic touch the direct physical risk is minimal, and the sample says so in one sentence before turning to consent and opportunity cost, which is where the real risk sits.