The story discusses massage therapy for physical and emotional well-being. One of the reasons massage isn’t covered as frequently by insurance as other alternative therapies, such as acupuncture and spinal manipulation, is that there is relatively little evidence of benefit in well controlled studies. The article implies that the problem is licensing. Massage proponents argue that licensure might lead to insurance coverage. But the story doesn’t discuss the lack of studies examining massage for certain conditions compared to placebo and active treatments. Personal testaments should not be enough to drive health care policy in a time when health care costs are rising – at least in part because of the widespread use of tests and treatments of limited or no value.
It is likely that massage may be better for certain conditions than others. The fact that there may be benefit in premature infants doesn’t directly translate into adults with shoulder pain. It is also likely that the alternative treatments vary dependent upon the condition. While the story notes that there are medical studies which have looked at the benefits of massage for certain groups of people, no data from these studies are cited.
The story does not mention things that can go wrong during a massage, especially with people who are already injured, or who have orthopedic or other biomechanical issues. Practitioners who are not adequately trained might risk further injury to these massage clients. Oversight of massage practice via licensure might prevent some of these harms; however, the story only focuses on the negative public image of massage (i.e. ties to the adult entertainment industry).
Though the story does not provide the actual cost of massage for those described, it does mention that massage is often not paid for by insurers. Again, one of the points of the article is that by accrediting massage therapists, insurers will be more likely to cover treatment by such providers.
The story cites both a massage therapist and an orthopedic surgeon to provide perspective on the role of massage in prevention and treatment of injury. However, the story is weighted heavily on information from those in the field of massage, so another perspective on massage as possible adjunct to evidence-based treatments would provide balance to the story. As is mentioned, massage has its place, but it is not a panacea.
The story does not provide the actual cost of massage for those uses described. Granted, these costs are likely to vary quite a bit, but the story could have provided a range of costs. The story does explain that massage is often not paid for by insurers. Indeed one of the points of the article is that by accrediting massage therapists, insurers will be more likely to cover treatment by such providers. It would have been useful to know the cost of treatment for the man who had massage for his shoulder (to distinguish from the $120,000 mentioned for surgery).
The story mostly provides personal testaments of the benefits of massage. No studies are cited discussing the role of massage in healing these types of injuries. Quantitative data from one study re: weight gain for premature infants is noted, however, there is no context for these numbers and an incomplete description of this study. The fact that there may be benefit in premature infants doesn’t directly translate into adults with shoulder pain. It also implies that massage is better than physical therapy (PT can include manual techniques such as massage and mobilization – the difference is the person doing it) and spinal manipulation.
The story focuses on the many benefits of massage and discusses licensing for practitioners in Michigan. The story does not mention things that can go wrong during a massage, especially with people who are already injured, or who have orthopedic or biomechanical issues. Practitioners who are not adequately trained might increase harms to these massage clients. Oversight via licensure might prevent some of these harms. The story only focuses on the negative public image of massage (i.e. ties to the adult entertainment industry).
The story discusses massage therapy for physical and emotional well-being. It is likely that massage may be better for certain conditions than others. The fact that there may be benefit in premature infants doesn’t directly translate into adults with shoulder pain. One of the reasons massage isn’t covered as frequently by insurance as other alternative therapies, such as acupuncture and spinal manipulation, is that there is relatively little evidence of benefit in well controlled studies. The article implies that the problem is licensing. That may be true to some extent, but a lack of evidence is an important reason as well.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story cites both a massage therapist and an orthopedic surgeon to provide perspective on the role of massage in prevention and treatment of injury. The story weighted heavily on information from those in the field of massage, so another perspective on massage as an adjunct to other treatments would provide balance to the story. As is mentioned, massage has its place, but it is not a panacea and not without some risks.
The story focuses only on massage. If people who have had shoulder injuries are interviewed as examples of the healing benefits of massage, then further discussion of how this and other complementary therapies can be integrated with evidence-based medical treatments would be helpful. It is likely that massage may be better for certain conditions than others. It is also likely that the alternative treatments vary dependent upon the condition.
Massage is widely available, but as the article points out there are no requirements placed upon practitioners of massage therapy. So even though the individuals in this article reported benefit from massage, it is possible or even likely that the benefit they observed may not be generalizable to all massage therapists. There are also different types of massage and again the response may differ based upon the technique. Thus, even though it is widely available, it doesn’t mean that the same type of treatments or the quality of providers are the same in different regions.
Massage is not a new treatment for relaxation and short-term relief of muscular discomfort.
Information in this story does not appear to be taken directly from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like