Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Price School of Public Policy, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J Evid Based Integr Med. 2022 Jan-Dec;27:2515690X221103303. doi: 10.1177/2515690X221103303.
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?
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.
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.
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.
本系统评价旨在考察采用身心精神(BMS)模型的干预措施的现有随机对照试验,并评估整体健康结果的有效性。根据 BMS 模型的三个关键概念,我们的综述问题包括:(1)BMS 是如何定义的?(2)包括哪些活动,以及它们与 BMS 维度有何关系?(3)干预者的背景是什么,他们是否接受过 BMS 培训?(4)整体结果是什么?以及(5)研究的效果和质量如何?
通过 9 个数据库检索截至 2020 年 8 月发表的研究。该过程遵循 PRISMA 协议,并使用 Cochrane 手册的“偏倚风险”工具来确定纳入研究的质量。
在 20 项纳入的研究中,有 18 项(90%)提出了 BMS 定义,但只有 7 项(35%)纳入了 BMS 模型的三个关键概念。8 项研究(40%)提供了身体、心理和精神部分的详细描述,12 项研究(60%)提到了文化因素。只有 5 项(25%)具体说明了身体、心理和精神活动,只有 3 项(15%)详细报告了 BMS 培训。7 项研究(35%)显示在整体结果方面有效。只有 3 项(15%)被认为是高质量的。
强烈建议对 BMS 模型提出统一的定义,并制定应用 BMS 模型进行设计和实施干预的指南,为研究人员开展未来的研究提供一个标准框架。质量低的原因是缺乏充分的分配隐藏和盲法。