Alasdair MacSween1, Susan Lorrimer2, Paul van Schaik3, Marie Holmes4, Anna van Wersch3. 1. School of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK. Electronic address: A.Macsween@tees.ac.uk. 2. Teesside University, Student Services Department, Middlesbrough, UK. 3. School of Social Science, Business and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK. 4. Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and social constructions of Thai massage (TM) and Swedish massage (SM) for patients experiencing fatigue or depleted energy. METHOD: Twenty participants were randomised to receive three once-weekly TM treatments and three once-weekly SM treatments, with crossover after three massages. Symptom checklists were administered at three time points and included Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List and VAS Scale. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews and participants' diary entries. RESULTS: Both massage types enhanced physical, emotional and mental wellbeing through improved sleep, relaxation, relief of stress and relief of muscular tension. TM alone showed specific energising and psychological stimulation results, along with carry-over effect and longer lasting benefits. Ninety-five percent of participants found relief from their initial reason presenting symptoms. CONCLUSION:TM or SM can relieve symptoms of fatigue or low energy by releasing stress, promoting relaxation, relieving muscular aches and pains and improving energy. SM results in a larger effect in relaxation and improved sleep whereas TM results in a larger effect in energising, rejuvenating and mentally stimulating effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and social constructions of Thai massage (TM) and Swedish massage (SM) for patients experiencing fatigue or depleted energy. METHOD: Twenty participants were randomised to receive three once-weekly TM treatments and three once-weekly SM treatments, with crossover after three massages. Symptom checklists were administered at three time points and included Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List and VAS Scale. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews and participants' diary entries. RESULTS: Both massage types enhanced physical, emotional and mental wellbeing through improved sleep, relaxation, relief of stress and relief of muscular tension. TM alone showed specific energising and psychological stimulation results, along with carry-over effect and longer lasting benefits. Ninety-five percent of participants found relief from their initial reason presenting symptoms. CONCLUSION: TM or SM can relieve symptoms of fatigue or low energy by releasing stress, promoting relaxation, relieving muscular aches and pains and improving energy. SM results in a larger effect in relaxation and improved sleep whereas TM results in a larger effect in energising, rejuvenating and mentally stimulating effects.