Dataset Information

Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine whether religious and spiritual interventions (RSIs) can promote physical health and quality of life in individuals.

Methods

The following databases were used to conduct a systematic review: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Scielo. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated RSIs regarding physical health outcomes and/or quality of life in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. RSI protocols performed at a distance (i.e. intercessory prayer) or for psychiatric disorders were excluded. This study consisted of two phases: (a) reading titles and abstracts, and (b) assessing the full articles and their methodological quality using the Cochrane Back Review Group scale.

Results

In total, 7,070 articles were identified in the search, but 6884 were excluded in phase 1 because they were off topic or repeated in databases. Among the 186 articles included in phase 2, 140 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria and 16 did not have adequate randomization process. Thus, a final selection of 30 articles remained. The participants of the selected studies were classified in three groups: chronic patients (e.g., cancer, obesity, pain), healthy individuals and healthcare professionals. The outcomes assessed included quality of life, physical activity, pain, cardiac outcomes, promotion of health behaviors, clinical practice of healthcare professionals and satisfaction with protocols. The divergence concerning scales and protocols proposed did not allow a meta-analysis. RSIs as a psychotherapy approach were performed in 40% of the studies, and the control group was more likely to use an educational intervention (56.7%). The results revealed small effect sizes favoring RSIs in quality of life and pain outcomes and very small effects sizes in physical activity, promotion of health behaviors and clinical practice of health professionals compared with other complementary strategies. Other outcomes, such as cardiac measures and satisfaction with the protocols, revealed no evidence for RSIs. Regarding the quality of the selected articles according to the Cochrane Back Review Group Scale, the average score was 6.83 (SD = 9.08) on a scale of 11, demonstrating robustness in the studies.

Conclusion

Clinical trials on RSIs demonstrated that they had small benefits compared with other complementary health therapies by reducing pain and weight, improving quality of life and promoting health behaviors. The lack of clinical trials that included biological outcomes and the diversity of approaches indicate a need for more studies to understand the possible mechanisms of action of RSIs and their roles in health care.

SUBMITTER: Goncalves JPB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5648186 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Gonçalves Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin JPB Lucchetti Giancarlo G Menezes Paulo Rossi PR Vallada Homero H

PloS one 20171019 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether religious and spiritual interventions (RSIs) can promote physical health and quality of life in individuals.<h4>Methods</h4>The following databases were used to conduct a systematic review: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Scielo. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated RSIs regarding physical health outcomes and/or quality of life in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. RSI protocols performed at a distance (i.e. i ...[more]

PMID: 29049421

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:BackgroundBlended care interventions combine therapeutic guidance with digital care. Current research results show the promising role of the blended care approach in clinical care. This new way of delivering health care could have the potential to effectively promote physical activity in different public health settings.ObjectiveThe aim of the systematic review is to investigate the varieties of intervention characteristics of blended care interventions to promote physical activity in terms of structure, behavior change goals, behavior change techniques, and effectiveness of blended care interventions compared to a control group.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to March 2021 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Furthermore, the effect size on the outcome of physical activity was examined or calculated.ResultsIn total, the number of reports identified from the database searches was 4828. Of these, 25 studies were included in the review, with a total of 5923 study participants. Results indicated that the characteristics of blended care interventions showed a high heterogeneity. The combinations of therapist-guided interventions and digital interventions allowed the identification of specific subgroups, but they varied in length (range 8-52 weeks, SD 16.6), intensity, and the combination of the components. The most used combination of blended care interventions to promote physical activity was the combination of one-on-one meetings via telephone and Web-based interventions. Motivational models of behavior change were used most frequently as underlying theoretical foundations. Certain behavior change techniques were used consistently across the individual components, e.g., "problem solving" in the therapist-guided component and "feedback on behavior" in the digital component. Considering the effect size of blended care interventions compared with control groups, most studies showed a small effect.ConclusionsIt can be concluded that blended care interventions have potential to promote physical activity. In the future, further high-quality studies should investigate which type of blended care intervention is effective for which target group. Additionally, insights are required on which intervention characteristics are most effective, taking into account new evidence on behavior change. Registration This systematic literature review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020188556 ).

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death globally. In addition, 20% to 40% of the patients with CHD have comorbid mental health issues such as anxiety or depression, affecting the prognosis and quality of life (QoL). Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have been developed and are widely used; however, the evidence for the effects of mHealth interventions on QoL, anxiety, and depression in patients with CHD is currently ambiguous.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to assess the effects of mHealth interventions on QoL, anxiety, and depression in patients with CHD.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases from inception to August 12, 2023. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that involved patients with CHD who received mHealth interventions and that reported on QoL, anxiety, or depression outcomes. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies, ensuring a rigorous and methodologically sound analysis. Review Manager (desktop version 5.4; The Cochrane Collaboration) and Stata MP (version 17.0; StataCorp LLC) were used to conduct the meta-analysis. The effect size was calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 23 studies (5406 participants in total) and showed that mHealth interventions significantly improved QoL in patients with CHD (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.72; Z=4.07; P<.001) as well as relieved their anxiety (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.08; Z=2.38; P=.02) and depression (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.12; Z=3.00; P=.003) compared to usual care. The subgroup analyses indicated a significant effect favoring the mHealth intervention on reducing anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to usual care, especially when (1) the intervention duration was ≥6 months (P=.04 and P=.001), (2) the mHealth intervention was a simple one (only 1 mHealth intervention was used) (P=.01 and P<.001), (3) it was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic (P=.04 and P=.01), (4) it was implemented in low- or middle-income countries (P=.01 and P=.02), (5) the intervention focused on mental health (P=.01 and P=.007), and (6) adherence rates were high (≥90%; P=.03 and P=.002). In addition, comparing mHealth interventions to usual care, there was an improvement in QoL when (1) the mHealth intervention was a simple one (P<.001), (2) it was implemented in low- or middle-income countries (P<.001), and (3) the intervention focused on mental health (P<.001).ConclusionsOn the basis of the existing evidence, mHealth interventions might be effective in improving QoL and reducing anxiety and depression in patients with CHD. However, large sample, high-quality, and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials are needed to provide further evidence.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022383858; https://tinyurl.com/3ea2npxf.

Project description:BackgroundFrailty is the pre-eminent exigency of aging. Although frailty-related impairments are preventable, and multidomain interventions appear more effective than unimodal ones, the optimal components remain uncertain.MethodsWe devised multidomain interventions against physical and cognitive decline among prefrail/frail community-dwelling ≥65-year-olds and evaluated these in complementary cluster-randomized trials of efficacy and participant empowerment. The Efficacy Study compared ~3-monthly telephone consultations vs. 16, 2 h sessions/year comprising communally partaken physical and cognitive training plus nutrition and disease education; the Empowerment Study compared the standard Efficacy Study multidomain intervention (Sessions 1-10) vs. an enhanced version redesigned to empower and motivate individual participants. Changes from baseline in physical, functional, and cognitive performance were measured after 6 and 12 months in the Efficacy Study and after 6 months in the Empowerment Study, with post-intervention follow-up at 9 months. Primary outcomes are as follows: Cardiovascular Health Study frailty score; gait speed; handgrip strength; and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Secondary outcomes are as follows: instrumental activities of daily living; metabolic equivalent of task (MET); depressed mood (Geriatric Depression Scale-5 ≥2); and malnutrition (Mini-Nutritional Assessment short-form ≤11). Intervention effects were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model.ResultsEfficacy Study participants (n = 1082, 40 clusters) were 75.1 ± 6.3 years old, 68.7% women, and 64.7% prefrail/frail; analytic clusters: 19 intervention (410/549 completed) vs. 21 control (375/533 completed). Empowerment Study participants (n = 440, 14 clusters) were 75.9 ± 7.1 years old, 83.6% women, and 56.7% prefrail/frail; analytic clusters: seven intervention (209/230 completed) vs. seven control (189/210 completed). The standard and enhanced multidomain interventions both reduced frailty and significantly improved aspects of physical, functional, and cognitive performance, especially among ≥75-year-olds. Standard multidomain intervention decreased depression [odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 0.99] and malnutrition (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.26, 0.78) by 12 months and improved concentration at Months 6 (0.23, 95% CI 0.04, 0.42) and 12 (0.46, 95% CI 0.22, 0.70). Participant empowerment augmented activity (4.67 MET/h, 95% CI 1.64, 7.69) and gait speed (0.06 m/s, 95% CI 0.00, 0.11) at 6 months, with sustained improvements in delayed recall (0.63, 95% CI 0.20, 1.06) and MoCA performance (1.29, 95% CI 0.54, 2.03), and less prevalent malnutrition (odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.18, 0.84), 3 months after the intervention ceased.ConclusionsPragmatic multidomain intervention can diminish physical frailty, malnutrition, and depression and enhance cognitive performance among community-dwelling elders, especially ≥75-year-olds; this might supplement healthy aging policies, probably more effectively if participants are empowered.

Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) interventions can increase physical activity (PA); however, their long-term impact is not well understood.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to understand the immediate and long-term effects of mHealth interventions on PA. The secondary aim is to explore potential effect moderators.MethodsWe performed this study according to the Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO in July 2020. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials of mHealth interventions targeting PA as a primary outcome in adults. Eligible outcome measures were walking, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), total physical activity (TPA), and energy expenditure. Where reported, we extracted data for 3 time points (ie, end of intervention, follow-up ≤6 months, and follow-up >6 months). To explore effect moderators, we performed subgroup analyses by population, intervention design, and control group type. Results were summarized using random effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.ResultsOf the 2828 identified studies, 117 were included. These studies reported on 21,118 participants with a mean age of 52.03 (SD 14.14) years, of whom 58.99% (n=12,459) were female. mHealth interventions significantly increased PA across all the 4 outcome measures at the end of intervention (walking standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.55; P<.001; MVPA SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.21-0.35; P<.001; TPA SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.47; P<.001; energy expenditure SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.13-0.75; P=.01). Only 33 studies reported short-term follow-up measurements, and 8 studies reported long-term follow-up measurements in addition to end-of-intervention results. In the short term, effects were sustained for walking (SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.42; P=.002), MVPA (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.35; P=.008), and TPA (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.13-0.93; P=.009). In the long term, effects were also sustained for walking (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.39; P=.001) and MVPA (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.27; P<.001). We found the study population to be an effect moderator, with higher effect scores in sick and at-risk populations. PA was increased both in scalable and nonscalable mHealth intervention designs and regardless of the control group type. The risk of bias was rated high in 80.3% (94/117) of the studies. Heterogeneity was significant, resulting in low to very low quality of evidence.ConclusionsmHealth interventions can foster small to moderate increases in PA. The effects are maintained long term; however, the effect size decreases over time. The results encourage using mHealth interventions in at-risk and sick populations and support the use of scalable mHealth intervention designs to affordably reach large populations. However, given the low evidence quality, further methodologically rigorous studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term effects.

Dataset Information

Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets