Prospective trial evaluates safety and feasibility of touch care and aromatherapy in hospitalized patients with thoracic malignancies, suggesting potential benefits.
Abstract: Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of combining touch care with aromatherapy in hospitalized patients with thoracic malignancies. Methods Patients hospitalized in the thoracic oncology department at Shizuoka Cancer Center who had undergone chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or best supportive care were considered eligible for this prospective single-arm feasibility study. The intervention involved 20 minutes of touch care applied to the feet, following a manual from the Japan-Sweden Welfare Research Institute, combined with aromatherapy, using a sachet of aroma beads soaked in essential oil placed on the chest of each patient throughout the session. The feasibility was assessed based on the proportion of patients completing the intervention. Safety was monitored by reporting adverse events, intervention-related discomfort, and abstention. Changes in subjective physical and emotional status before and after the intervention were assessed using questionnaires, while changes in physiological parameters were evaluated through heart rate variability frequency analysis and salivary stress hormone levels. Results Among the 90 enrolled patients, 87 were evaluable and all completed the intervention. Regarding safety, intervention-related adverse events were observed in 5.7% of cases, but all were minor. Five of the six subjective physical and emotional status significantly improved before and after the intervention. Physiological assessments showed an increase in parasympathetic nervous system activity, with reductions significantly in salivary α-amylase and cortisol levels. No exacerbation of preexisting symptoms was observed. Conclusions The combined intervention of touch care and aromatherapy was feasible and safe for hospitalized patients with thoracic malignancies undergoing cancer treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tamai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: