Search

Objective: Understanding the relevance of religion or spirituality (R/S) in the treatment of mental disorders is central to clinical and academic psychiatry. In this secondary analysis, associations of R/S with depression were investigated with respect to a new second-generation mindfulness-based intervention, the Meditation-Based Lifestyle Modification (MBLM) program. Methods: Different aspects of spirituality, spiritual coping, and spiritual engagement were assessed in 81 patients with a diagnosis of mild-to-moderate depression. Treatment effects on R/S postscores and predictor and moderation effects of depression severity and stress change-scores were evaluated at 8 weeks (MBLM vs. CONTROL [drug continuation therapy] vs. TAU [inpatient treatment as usual]) and 6 months (TAU+MBLM vs. TAU). Results: At both time points, significant differences between MBLM versus TAU and CONTROL were found in a range of spiritual outcomes, most of them with a medium-to-large effect size and in favor of MBLM. Baseline interest in spirituality (p = 0.001) and baseline spiritual mind–body practice (p = 0.017) were identified as independent predictors of change in depression severity at 6 months. Moreover, moderation analyses found that patients reporting often/regular spiritual mind–body practice at 6 months did not benefit differently from TAU+MBLM versus TAU (p = 0.437) regarding their change in depression severity and stress, while those reporting no/seldom spiritual mind–body practice at 6 months benefited significantly worse from TAU than from TAU+MBLM (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Participation in the MBLM program resulted in significantly greater increases in spirituality in depressed patients than standard therapy. Interest in spirituality and engagement in spiritual mind–body practices at baseline were positive predictors of clinical outcome in both groups. Patients of any group who regularly performed spiritual mind–body practices benefited equally in terms of antidepressant outcomes, underlining the benefit of these practices within a general therapeutic framework. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03652220 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several meditation interventions showed positive effects on physical and mental health. The aim of this study is a first evaluation of the (within-group) effects of a 21-day online meditation course of the "expansion method." Methods: For this exploratory observational study, parameters were assessed at baseline, at 1 month, and at a 3-month follow-up. Exploratory endpoints were health-related quality of life (PROMIS Preference Score), global health (PROMIS) with the subscales physical and mental health, stress perception (Perceived Stress Scale), positive and negative affect regulation (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), flourishing (Flourishing Scale), self-efficacy (Short Scale for Measuring General Self-Efficacy Beliefs), gratitude and awe (Gratitude and Awe Questionnaire), resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), spirituality (Aspects of Spirituality), and mysticism (Mysticism Scale) on validated inventories. In addition, self-constructed questions (NRS) assessed health status, lifestyle, and concept evaluation. Results: Data from 359 participants were included in this study (response rate: 68% at 1 month, 46% at 3 months). The main analysis was based on the complete cases at 1 month (n = 244 participants; 84% female; 51 ± 11 years; 89% German). Medium effect sizes were found for mental health (p < 0.0001; d = 0.6), flourishing (p < 0.0001; d = 0.63), and negative affect (p < 0.0001; d = 0.68) at 1 month. Small effect sizes were obtained for physical health, stress, positive affect, self-efficacy, spirituality, and mysticism at 3 months. In a sensitivity analysis, the strongest effects at 1 month were found in the subgroup that completed per-protocol (n = 140), followed by those with complete data at all time points (n = 159). Effects were lowest in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 359). The content of the course was positively evaluated by the participants. Conclusions: The online meditation course based on the expansion method had potentially beneficial effects, especially on mental health parameters. Based on the feasibility results, further research using randomized controlled designs is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04950543. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Yoga is frequently used for back pain relief. However, the evidence was judged to be of only low to moderate certainty. To assess the efficacy and safety of yoga in patients with low back pain, a meta-analysis was performed. Therefore, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched to May 26, 2020. Only randomized controlled trials comparing Yoga with passive control (usual care or wait list), or an active comparator, for patients with low back pain and that assessed pain intensity or pain-related disability as a primary outcome were considered to be eligible. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, outcome measures, and results at short-term and long-term follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Thirty articles on 27 individual studies (2702 participants in total) proved eligible for review. Compared with passive control, yoga was associated with short-term improvements in pain intensity (15 RCTs; mean difference [MD] = -0.74 points on a numeric rating scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.04 to -0.44; standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.37 95% CI = -0.52 to -0.22), pain-related disability (15 RCTs; MD = -2.28; 95% CI = -3.30 to -1.26; SMD = -0.38 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.21), mental health (7 RCTs; MD = 1.70; 95% CI = 0.20-3.20; SMD = 0.17 95% CI = 0.02-0.32), and physical functioning (9 RCTs; MD = 2.80; 95% CI = 1.00-4.70; SMD = 0.28 95% CI = 0.10-0.47). Except for mental health, all effects were sustained long-term. Compared with an active comparator, yoga was not associated with any significant differences in short-term or long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is frequently used for pain conditions. While systematic reviews on MBSR for chronic pain have been conducted, there are no reviews for specific pain conditions. Therefore a systematic review of the effectiveness of MBSR in low back pain was performed. Methods MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CAMBASE, and PsycInfo were screened through November 2011. The search strategy combined keywords for MBSR with keywords for low back pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MBSR to control conditions in patients with low back pain were included. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Clinical importance of group differences was assessed for the main outcome measures pain intensity and back-specific disability. Results Three RCTs with a total of 117 chronic low back pain patients were included. One RCT on failed back surgery syndrome reported significant and clinically important short-term improvements in pain intensity and disability for MBSR compared to no treatment. Two RCTs on older adults (age ≥ 65 years) with chronic specific or non-specific low back pain reported no short-term or long-term improvements in pain or disability for MBSR compared to no treatment or health education. Two RCTs reported larger short-term improvements of pain acceptance for MBSR compared to no treatment. Conclusion This review found inconclusive evidence of effectiveness of MBSR in improving pain intensity or disability in chronic low back pain patients. However, there is limited evidence that MBSR can improve pain acceptance. Further RCTs with larger sample sizes, adequate control interventions, and longer follow-ups are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.