A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials on Interventions Adopting Body-Mind-Spirit (BMS) Model on Holistic Well-Being

Author:

Li Tongtong1234ORCID,Hu Xinyue5,Chi Iris634

Affiliation:

1. Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

2. Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

3. Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

4. Edward R. Roybal Institute on Aging, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

5. College of Social Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

6. School of Law, Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance, Shanghai, China

Abstract

Background This systematic review aims to examine existing randomized controlled trials on interventions adopting Body-Mind-Spirit (BMS) model and evaluated the effectiveness of holistic well-being outcomes. Following three key concepts of the BMS model, our review questions included (1) How was BMS defined? (2) What activities were included, and how were they related to BMS dimensions? (3) What were interventionists’ backgrounds, and whether they received BMS training? (4) What were holistic outcomes? and (5) What were the effectiveness and qualities of studies? Methods Searches were performed using nine databases for the studies published through August 2020. The process follows PRISMA protocol, and the “risk of bias” tool from the Cochrane Handbook was utilized to determine the quality of included studies. Results Across 20 included studies, 18 (90%) presented a BMS definition, but only seven (35%) included all three key concepts of the BMS model. Eight studies (40%) offered detailed descriptions of body, mind, and spirit sections, and 12 (60%) mentioned cultural factors. Only five (25%) specified the body, mind, and spirit activities, and only three (15%) reported the BMS training in detail. Seven studies (35%) showed effectiveness in holistic outcomes. Only three (15%) were considered as high quality. Conclusion A unified definition of the BMS model and the guideline to apply the BMS model to design and implement interventions are highly recommended to provide a standard framework for researchers to conduct future studies. The reason for low quality is because the lack of adequate allocation concealment and blindings.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Complementary and alternative medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3