Roy Wilson’s Bowen Therapy Treatment. -Analysis of Patients’ Response.

Measuring the benefits of treatment.

The efficacy of the author’s Bowen therapy is evaluated by comparing the number of treatments vis-à-vis the patient’s perceived benefit from those treatments.

The Patient’s response.

The response has been graded from One to Five.

• One, is slight or no apparent benefit.
• Two, is some benefit, but the patient either stopped having treatment, (often without giving a reason), or NHS treatment suddenly became available.
• Three, is some relief from the condition, but further treatment not taken up or deferred.
• Four, is considerable benefit but some intermittent low-level discomfort, (usually with self-healing taking place).
• Five, the condition cleared.

Each block represents the patients’ response. The horizontal axis shows the number of treatments to give that response. The vertical axis shows the number of patients per column. The chart enables a patient to be ‘tracked’ through the system. The numbers in the squares refer to the patient’s case number.

Some case notes are numbered with a suffix ‘a’, ‘b’, or, ‘c’. This means that the patient had additional treatment at least three months after the preceding one. Usually this is because of either re-injury, a new condition, or that they declined a second recommended follow-on treatment and had to come back later.

Patients numbered 1 to 22 were case studies treated during the one years-training period. The associated chart shows the correlation between the number of treatments and the benefit.

Analysis of the chart.

Response 1. 3 people, ( 3.15%). Response 2. 10 people, (10.5%). Response 3. 15 people, (15.8%). Response 4. 34 people, (35.8%). Response 5. 33 people, (34.7%).

Taking Responses 4 and 5 as desirable, then 70.5% of patients had a satisfactory conclusion. Further analysis of Responses 4 and 5 show that one treatment benefited 23 people, (24.2%); two treatments, benefited 44 people, (46.3%); and three treatments (the recommended minimum), benefited 60 people, (63.2%). Four or more treatments, (which only 6 people needed), benefited 67 people, (70.5%)

Comments about the chart.

The figures above would have been improved if there had been included unrelated conditions that had been alleviated during the treatments, and the dozen or so ‘mini’ treatments applied at ‘open days’ that gave people immediate benefit.

Also included are patients, who contrary to advice given, mixed therapies, not kept the second appointment, and not having the courtesy to return calls enquiring about their reaction to the treatment. What is even more remarkable about the figures is that Bowen therapy, due to a general lack of awareness, is a call of last resort for people who have found that nothing else has worked for them. The figures, even on the relatively small sample, and including cases undertaken whilst not fully trained, show that Bowen therapy has a lot to offer, and could make it one of the first-choice options in the future.