Dataset Information

Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bach Flower Remedies are thought to help balance emotional state and are commonly recommended by practitioners for psychological problems and pain. We assessed whether Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) are safe and efficacious for these indications by performing a systematic review of the literature.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2008 and performed a hand-search of references from relevant key articles. For efficacy, we included all prospective studies with a control group. For safety, we also included retrospective, observational studies with more than 30 subjects. Two authors abstracted data and determined risk of bias using a recognised rating system of trial quality.

Results

Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two additional retrospective, observational studies were identified and included in the review. Three RCTs of BFRs for students with examination anxiety, and one RCT of BFRs for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed no overall benefit in comparison to placebo. Due to the number and quality of the studies the strength of the evidence is low or very low. We did not find any controlled prospective studies regarding the efficacy of BFRs for pain. Only four of the six studies included for safety explicitly reported adverse events.

Conclusion

Most of the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of BFRs has a high risk of bias. We conclude that, based on the reported adverse events in these six trials, BFRs are probably safe. Few controlled prospective trials of BFRs for psychological problems and pain exist. Our analysis of the four controlled trials of BFRs for examination anxiety and ADHD indicates that there is no evidence of benefit compared with a placebo intervention.

SUBMITTER: Thaler K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2695424 | biostudies-literature | 2009 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.

Thaler Kylie K Kaminski Angela A Chapman Andrea A Langley Tessa T Gartlehner Gerald G

BMC complementary and alternative medicine 20090526

<h4>Background</h4>Bach Flower Remedies are thought to help balance emotional state and are commonly recommended by practitioners for psychological problems and pain. We assessed whether Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) are safe and efficacious for these indications by performing a systematic review of the literature.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2008 and performed a hand-search of references from relevant key articles. For effic ...[more]

PMID: 19470153

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe link between mental health difficulties and terrorist behaviour has been the subject of debate for the last 50 years. Studies that report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples or compare rates for those involved and not involved in terrorism, can inform this debate and the work of those responsible for countering violent extremism.ObjectivesTo synthesise the prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples (Objective 1-Prevalence) and prevalence of mental health disorders pre-dating involvement in terrorism (Objective 2-Temporality). The review also synthesises the extent to which mental health difficulties are associated with terrorist involvement compared to non-terrorist samples (Objective 3-Risk Factor).Search methodsSearches were conducted between April and June 2022, capturing research until December 2021. We contacted expert networks, hand-searched specialist journals, harvested records from published reviews, and examined references lists for included papers to identify additional studies.Selection criteriaStudies needed to empirically examine mental health difficulties and terrorism. To be included under Objective 1 (Prevalence) and Objective 2 (Temporality), studies had to adopt cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control design and report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples, with studies under Objective 2 also needing to report prevalence of difficulties before detection or involvement in terrorism. For Objective 3 (Risk Factor) studies where there was variability in terrorist behaviour (involved vs. not involved) were included.Data collection and analysisCaptured records were screened in DisillterSR by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and random-effects meta-analysis conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.ResultsFifty-six papers reporting on 73 different terrorist samples (i.e., studies) (n = 13,648) were identified. All were eligible for Objective 1. Of the 73 studies, 10 were eligible for Objective 2 (Temporality) and nine were eligible for Objective 3 (Risk Factor). For Objective 1, the life-time prevalence rate of diagnosed mental disorder in terrorist samples (k = 18) was 17.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 11.1%-26.3%]. When collapsing all studies reporting psychological problems, disorder, and suspected disorder into one meta-analyses (k = 37), the pooled prevalence rate was 25.5% (95% CI = 20.2%-31.6%). When isolating studies reporting data for any mental health difficulty that emerged before either engagement in terrorism or detection for terrorist offences (Objective 2: Temporality), the life-time prevalence rate was 27.8% (95% CI = 20.9%-35.9%). For Objective 3 (Risk Factor), it was not appropriate to calculate a pooled effect size due the differences in comparison samples. Odds ratios for these studies ranged from 0.68 (95% CI = 0.38-1.22) to 3.13 (95% CI = 1.87-5.23). All studies were assessed as having high-risk of bias which, in part, reflects challenges conducting terrorism research.Author's conclusionsThis review does not support the assertion that terrorist samples are characterised by higher rates of mental health difficulties than would be expected in the general population. Findings have implications for future research in terms of design and reporting. There are also implications for practice with regards the inclusion of mental health difficulties as indicators of risk.

Project description:BackgroundFoot and ankle pain is common, and generally viewed through a biomedical lens rather than applying a biopsychosocial model. The objectives of this review were to evaluate: (1) the psychosocial characteristics of participants with foot/ankle pain compared to participants without foot/ankle pain; (2) the association between psychosocial factors with pain and function in people with foot/ankle pain; and (3) understand the psychosocial factors associated with the lived experience of foot/ankle pain.MethodsA mixed methods systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsychInfo, and Scopus were searched. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool was used to evaluate study quality. A convergent segregated approach was used to synthesise and integrate quantitative and qualitative data.ResultsEighteen studies were included, consisting of 13 quantitative, 4 qualitative and 1 mixed methods study. The overall quality of the studies was considered high. Integration of the quantitative and qualitative data were not possible due to the disparate nature of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the quantitative data revealed that negative emotional and cognitive factors were more common in people with foot/ankle pain compared to those without foot/ankle pain. A significant association was also found between emotional distress with foot pain and foot function in some people with plantar heel pain. In addition, kinesiophobia and pain catastrophising were significantly associated with impaired foot function, and pain catastrophising was significantly associated with first step pain in people with plantar heel pain. The qualitative data revealed emotional impacts, physical challenges, and a loss of self which was individual and unpredictable.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence that negative psychological constructs are greater in participants with foot/ankle pain compared to those without foot/ankle pain, although the cross-sectional nature of the study designs included in this review reduces the certainty of the evidence. These findings indicate that psychological constructs are associated with foot/ankle pain. Further research should evaluate the predictive ability of multidimensional screening tools to identify patients at risk of developing persistent foot/ankle pain.

Project description:BackgroundThe emerging novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become one of the leading cause of deaths worldwide in 2020. The present systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the magnitude of sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship with psychological distress.MethodsFive academic databases (Scopus, PubMed Central, ProQuest, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase) were searched. Observational studies including case-control studies and cross-sectional studies were included if relevant data relationships were reported (i.e., sleep assessed utilizing the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index or Insomnia Severity Index). All the studies were English, peer-reviewed papers published between December 2019 and February 2021. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020181644.Findings168 cross-sectional, four case-control, and five longitudinal design papers comprising 345,270 participants from 39 countries were identified. The corrected pooled estimated prevalence of sleep problems were 31% among healthcare professionals, 18% among the general population, and 57% among COVID-19 patients (all p-values < 0.05). Sleep problems were associated with depression among healthcare professionals, the general population, and COVID-19 patients, with Fisher's Z scores of -0.28, -0.30, and -0.36, respectively. Sleep problems were positively (and moderately) associated with anxiety among healthcare professionals, the general population, and COVID-19 patients, with Fisher's z scores of 0.55, 0.48, and 0.49, respectively.InterpretationSleep problems appear to have been common during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, sleep problems were found to be associated with higher levels of psychological distress. With the use of effective programs treating sleep problems, psychological distress may be reduced. Vice versa, the use of effective programs treating psychological distress, sleep problems may be reduced.FundingThe present study received no funding.

Dataset Information

Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Bach Flower Remedies for psychological problems and pain: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets