Another piece of research into the Lightning Process has been published this month, adding to the growing evidence base for the efficacy of the Lightning Process intervention.
A team from Kings College London and London Metropolitan University have published a Systematic Review of the current research into the Lightning Process. This type of research is considered to be the most valuable type of research. It examines all the current data published in studies on the Lightning Process and colates all that information into a detailed overview, drawing conclusions about the quality of the evidence presented and the usefulness of the Lightning Process for various conditions. It’s a very important step for any intervention to have the scientific evaluation this type of research provides and helps to inform doctors and patients which conditions are most likely to benefit from taking the Lightning Process training.
This review published in 2020 by the journal Explore identified these highlights:
- This is the first systematic review of the Lightning Process.
- The systematic review found a variance in the quality of studies from good to fair and in reported patient outcomes.
- All studies evidenced a level of benefit from the intervention, commonly for the majority of participants.
and concluded that there was an emerging body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the LP for many participants with fatigue, physical function, pain, anxiety and depression.
The abstract can be found below and the full article is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830720302330
Abstract
Background
The Lightning Process (LP), a mind-body training programme, has been applied to a range of health problems and disorders. Studies and surveys report a range of outcomes creating a lack of clarity about the efficacy of the intervention.
Objective
This systematic review evaluates the methodological quality of existing studies on the LP and collates and reviews its reported efficacy.
Data sources
Five databases, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC (to September 2018), and Google and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies.
Study Selection
Studies of the LP in clinical populations published in peer-reviewed journals or in grey literature were selected. Reviews, editorial articles and studies/surveys with un-reported methodology were excluded.
Data extraction
Searches returned 568 records, 21 were retrieved in full text of which 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (ten quantitative studies/surveys and four qualitative studies).
Data synthesis and Conclusions
The review identified variance in the quality of studies across time; earlier studies demonstrated a lack of control groups, a lack of clarity of aspects of the methodology and potential sampling bias. Although it found a variance in reported patient outcomes, the review also identified an emerging body of evidence supporting the efficacy of the LP for many participants with fatigue, physical function, pain, anxiety and depression. It concludes that there is a need for more randomised controlled trials to evaluate if these positive outcomes can be replicated and generalised to larger populations.
