Warm Foot Bath for Supportive Fever Management: A Narrative Review of Clinical Evidence
J. Divine King *
Department of Naturopathy, Alvas College of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Mijar, Moodbidri, Karnataka- 574225, India.
Vanitha S. Shetty
Department of Naturopathy, Alvas College of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Mijar, Moodbidri, Karnataka- 574225, India.
K. V. Jyothi
Department of Naturopathy, Alvas College of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Mijar, Moodbidri, Karnataka- 574225, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Background. A warm foot bath (WFB) has been used as a supportive hydrotherapeutic measure for febrile patients, but its clinical evidence base is heterogeneous and largely derived from small nursing studies. This narrative review critically evaluates the available human evidence for WFB in fever, focusing on short-term temperature response, patient comfort, methodological limitations, and safety reporting.
Methods. The targeted narrative literature search was updated through 10 September 2026 using PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, publisher platforms, and backward citation searching. Eligible reports were peer-reviewed human clinical studies involving febrile or hyperthermic participants that evaluated warm or hot foot immersion and reported quantitative temperature outcomes. Evidence was appraised narratively for design, allocation, comparator quality, co-interventions, temperature measurement, follow-up, between-group analysis, and adverse-event ascertainment.
Results. Twenty verifiable clinical studies involving 1,300 participants were retained: nine paediatric studies (n = 650) and eleven adult studies (n = 650). Most reports described reductions in body temperature after WFB, and several controlled studies reported larger short-term reductions than routine care or control conditions. However, the evidence was dominated by small, single-centre quasi-experimental studies, inconsistent intervention temperatures and durations, frequent co-administration of routine care or antipyretics, short follow-up, and incomplete adverse-event reporting. One comparative study showed only a minimal short-term temperature change in the WFB arm, illustrating that the findings are not uniformly strong.
Conclusion. Low-certainty clinical evidence suggests that WFB may produce a modest short-term reduction in measured body temperature and may improve comfort when used as an adjunct to usual care. The available literature does not establish WFB as a substitute for diagnosis, cause-directed treatment, or evidence-based antipyretic management, and it is insufficient to define an optimal protocol or confirm safety across patient groups. Better-controlled trials with standardised exposure, clinically meaningful outcomes, and explicit safety monitoring are needed.
Keywords: Body temperature, fever, foot bath, hydrotherapy, supportive care, thermoregulation