Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Mindfulness-Based Movement Intervention to Improve Sleep Quality: A Meta-Analysis and Moderator Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

International journal of environmental research and public health
January 1, 1970
Jiayi Yang et al. (9 authors)
Journal ArticleMeta-AnalysisReviewSystematic ReviewResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to determine the most effective dose, optimal type, and most beneficial population for improving sleep with mindfulness-based movement (MBM).

Results Summary

The meta-analysis of 61 RCTs showed that MBM significantly improved sleep quality, with long-term practice (more than twice per week for over three months and a total intervention time exceeding 24 hours) yielding the largest effects. Healthy populations and older adults benefited more than patients and younger adults.

Population

Healthy individuals, older adults, and patients with sleep disturbances.

Effective Dosage

Practicing at least twice per week, with a total intervention time exceeding 24 hours.

Duration

More than three months.

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (8)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
mindfulness-based movement (MBM)
increase
sleep quality
2697 participants
SMD = −0.794; 95% CI: −0.794 to −0.994, p < 0.001, I2 = 90.7%
significantly improved
#1
long-term MBM
increase
sleep
-
SMD = −0.829; 95% CI: 0.945 to 0.712; p < 0.001
had a larger effect size
#2
short-term MBM
increase
sleep
-
SMD = −0.714; 95% CI: 0.784 to 0.644; p < 0.001
-
#3
MBM practicing at least twice per week
increase
-
-
SMD = −0.793; 95% CI: −0.868 to −0.718; p < 0.001
was more effective
#4
MBM practicing once per week
increase
-
-
SMD = −0.687; 95% CI: −0.804 to −0.570; p < 0.001
-
#5
MBM with total intervention time of more than 24 h
increase
sleep quality
-
SMD = −0.759; 95% CI: −0.865 to −0.653; p < 0.001
revealed better sleep quality improvement
#6
MBM
increase
-
healthy population and older adults
-
gained more from
#7
MBM
increase
subjective sleep quality
-
-
can effectively improve
#8
Abstract

(1) Background: Given that the most effective dose, optimal type, and most beneficial population for improving sleep with mindfulness-based movement (MBM) remains unknown, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with moderator analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess these effects. (2) Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO) were systematically searched for RCTs published through August 2021 for analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with Review Manager 5.3, and the meta-analysis was performed in Stata 16.0. (3) Results: A meta-analysis of 61 RCTs with 2697 participants showed that MBM significantly improved sleep quality compared to controls (SMD = −0.794; 95% CI: −0.794 to −0.994, p < 0.001, I2 = 90.7%). Moderator analysis showed that a long-term MBM (SMD = −0.829; 95% CI: 0.945 to 0.712; p < 0.001) had a larger effect size on sleep than a short-term MBM (SMD = −0.714; 95% CI: 0.784 to 0.644; p < 0.001). Practicing at least twice per week (SMD = −0.793; 95% CI: −0.868 to −0.718; p < 0.001) was more effective compared to practicing once per week (SMD = −0.687; 95% CI: −0.804 to −0.570; p < 0.001). Studies with a total intervention time of more than 24 h also revealed better sleep quality improvement (SMD = −0.759; 95% CI: −0.865 to −0.653; p < 0.001). In addition, the healthy population and older adults gained more from MBM than the patients and younger adults. (4) Conclusions: MBM can effectively improve subjective sleep quality, and the optimal intervention dose of MBM can be utilized in future intervention studies to treat or improve sleep disturbance (MBM more than twice a week for more than three months, with a total intervention time of more than 24 h).

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AgedHealth StatusHumansMindfulnessRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSleep QualitySleep Wake Disorders
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy85/10
Quality88/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations4
Citations/Year1.3
Relative Citation Ratio0.92
NIH Percentile47.1%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.50
Weight Score1.65
Normalized Score0.72
Related Supplements