A systematic review of randomized trials of mind‐body interventions for PTSD

Niles, Barbara L.; Mori, DeAnna L.; Polizzi, Craig P.; Kaiser, Anica Pless; Weinstein, Elizabeth S; Gershkovich, Marina; Wang, Chenchen

doi:10.1002/jclp.22634

Cited by 51 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The online Supplementary Material 1 shows the full electronic search strategy for MEDLINE (via PubMed). We also included additional records identified through other sources, such as the reference lists of earlier reviews and meta-analyses related to the use of meditation and/or relaxation interventions to reduce anxiety (Delmonte, 1985; Eppley et al ., 1989; Krisanaprakornkit et al ., 2006; Manzoni et al ., 2008; Ospina et al ., 2008; Davis and Kurzban, 2012; Bolognesi et al ., 2014; Goyal et al ., 2014; Orme-Johnson and Barnes, 2014; Hilton et al ., 2017; Cushing and Braun, 2018; Goldberg et al ., 2018; Niles et al ., 2018), as well as from the reference list of the included primary studies. The deadline for the search was 13 July 2018.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meditation techniques v. relaxation therapies when treating anxiety: a meta-analytic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent meditation techniques (which incorporate practices to regulate attention, construct individual values, or deconstruct self-related assumptions), are more or less effective than relaxation therapy in the treatment of anxiety, is not clear. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of meditation compared to relaxation in reducing anxiety. A systematic review from PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Central was conducted. A meta-analysis of 14 RCTs (n = 862 participants suffering from anxiety disorders or high trait anxiety) was performed. Effect sizes (ESs) were determined by Hedges’ g. Heterogeneity, risk of publication bias, quality of studies/interventions, and researcher allegiance, were evaluated. Meditation techniques incorporated attentional elements, and five of them also added constructive practices. No studies were found using deconstructive exercises. The overall ES was g = −0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.40 to −0.07], favouring meditation (number needed to treat = 7.74). Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 2; 95% CI 0 to 56). There was no evidence of publication bias, but few studies and interventions were of high quality, and allegiance might be moderating results. Meditation seems to be a bit more effective than relaxation in the treatment of anxiety, and it might also remain more effective at 12-month follow-up. However, more research using the full spectrum of meditation practices to treat different anxiety disorders, including independent studies to avoid researcher allegiance, is needed if we are to have a precise idea of the potential of these techniques compared to relaxation therapy.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meditation techniques v. relaxation therapies when treating anxiety: a meta-analytic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 28 Other systematic reviews reported similar findings, where they reported MBIs such as mindfulness, yoga and relaxation studies maybe useful for the mind–body treatments for PTSD but many of the trials suffered from methodologic weaknesses or were of low to moderate methodological rigor. 29 , 30 Further high-quality studies are needed on MBIs among PTSD-diagnosed participants in order to increase confidence in its effectiveness.…”

Section: Effects On Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindfulness-based interventions: an overall review

Zhang

Lee

Mák

et al. 2021

British Medical Bulletin

221

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This is an overall review on mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs). Sources of data We identified studies in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Web of Science and Google Scholar using keywords including ‘mindfulness’, ‘meditation’, and ‘review’, ‘meta-analysis’ or their variations. Areas of agreement MBIs are effective for improving many biopsychosocial conditions, including depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia, addiction, psychosis, pain, hypertension, weight control, cancer-related symptoms and prosocial behaviours. It is found to be beneficial in the healthcare settings, in schools and workplace but further research is warranted to look into its efficacy on different problems. MBIs are relatively safe, but ethical aspects should be considered. Mechanisms are suggested in both empirical and neurophysiological findings. Cost-effectiveness is found in treating some health conditions. Areas of controversy Inconclusive or only preliminary evidence on the effects of MBIs on PTSD, ADHD, ASD, eating disorders, loneliness and physical symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and respiratory conditions. Furthermore, some beneficial effects are not confirmed in subgroup populations. Cost-effectiveness is yet to confirm for many health conditions and populations. Growing points Many mindfulness systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate low quality of included studies, hence high-quality studies with adequate sample size and longer follow-up period are needed. Areas timely for developing research More research is needed on online mindfulness trainings and interventions to improve biopsychosocial health during the COVID-19 pandemic; Deeper understanding of the mechanisms of MBIs integrating both empirical and neurophysiological findings; Long-term compliance and effects of MBIs; and development of mindfulness plus (mindfulness+) or personalized mindfulness programs to elevate the effectiveness for different purposes.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have shown that AMBT had certain therapeutic effects for those suffering from PTSD (Van der Kolk et al, 2014;Polusny et al, 2015;Duan-Porter et al, 2016;Possemato et al, 2016). Mindbody therapy can also alleviate the physical and psychological symptoms suffered by PTSD patients, allowing them to actively cope with pain and enhance their ability to practice healthy living habits (Possemato et al, 2016;Niles et al, 2018). In addition, these self-help physical and mental interventions can help HWs take their attention off stressors and initiate an active health enhancement cycle (Niles et al, 2018).…”

Section: Improving the Mental Health Of Healthcare Workers By Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate Psychosocial Impact on Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread globally, and we aimed to investigate the psychosocial impact on healthcare workers (HWs) in China during the pandemic.Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched seven electronic databases for cross-sectional studies on psychosocial impact on HWs in relation to COVID-19 from January 1, 2020 to October 7, 2020. We included primary studies involving Chinese HWs during the pandemic, and data were extracted from the published articles. Our primary outcome was prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress disorders. We pooled prevalence value with their 95% confidence interval using random effect models and assessed study quality on the basis of an 11-item checklist recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020195843).Results: We identified 25 articles comprising a total of 30,841 completed questionnaires and 22 studies for meta-analysis. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress disorders was 34.4% (29.5–39.4%), 31.1% (24.5–37.7%), and 29.1% (24.3–33.8%) for HWs. The pooled prevalence of anxiety disorders for HWs from late January to early February was 46.4% (42.9–49.9%), significantly higher than those in mid-term February (28.0%, 23.9–32.1%) and after late February (27.6%, 16.0–39.2%). The pooled prevalence of depression disorders for HWs from late January to early February was 46.5% (38.8–54.2%), significantly higher than those in mid-term February (27.1%, 19.8–34.5%) and after late February (32.9%, 16.2–49.5%). HWs working in Hubei Province had a higher prevalence of anxiety (37.9 vs. 30.8%) and a lower prevalence of depression (27.5 vs. 34.7%) than those working in other regions. Nurses had a higher prevalence of anxiety (44.1 vs. 29.0%) and depression (34.1 vs. 29.2%) than other HWs.Conclusions: About one-third of HWs in China suffered anxiety, depression, and stress at the early epidemic of COVID-19. HWs in Hubei Province, especially nurses, had a higher prevalence of psychological disorders. During the pandemic, a negative psychological state may persist in a proportion of Chinese HWs, fluctuating with the control of the pandemic. The long-term impact should continue to be observed. Attention should be paid to HWs for their psychological impact due to the pandemic.Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020195843).

show abstract

A systematic review of randomized trials of mind‐body interventions for PTSD

Abstract: Although many studies are limited by methodologic weaknesses, recent studies have increased rigor and, in aggregate, the results for mindfulness, yoga, and relaxation are promising. Recommendations for design of future mind-body trials are offered.

Cited by 51 publications

References 80 publications

Meditation techniques v. relaxation therapies when treating anxiety: a meta-analytic review

Meditation techniques v. relaxation therapies when treating anxiety: a meta-analytic review

Mindfulness-based interventions: an overall review

Immediate Psychosocial Impact on Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About