Therapeutic Actions Mindfulness Training

NCBI pubmed

The attention training technique causally reduces self-focus following worry provocation and reduces cognitive anxiety among self-focused individuals.

The attention training technique causally reduces self-focus following worry provocation and reduces cognitive anxiety among self-focused individuals. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 12;61:66-71 Authors: Fergus TA, Wheless NE Abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The attention training technique (ATT) is a component of metacognitive therapy developed to interrupt self-focused, threat-based processing underlying anxiety disorders. Whereas extant research supports the benefits of ATT, including in relation to anxiety reduction, study findings lead to equivocal conclusions as to whether ATT causally interrupts self-focused attention (SFA) as intended. An additional gap in the literature relates to investigating if ATT is especially effective for reducing anxiety among individuals experiencing a heightened self-focused state. The present study sought to address those two gaps in the literature. METHOD: Participants scoring high on a measure of general worry severity completed a worry provocation that increased SFA and then were randomized to ATT (n = 45), a mindfulness task (n = 44), or a distraction task (n = 44). RESULTS: ATT caused large reductions in SFA, whereas there were no changes in focus of attention following the mindfulness or distraction task. Anxiety reduction was found in relation to all three tasks; however, ATT, relative to distraction, was found to cause greater reduction in cognitive anxiety for individuals highly self-focused before the task. LIMITATIONS: The present study used an analogue sample and the design did not allow for an examination of the long-term benefit of ATT. CONCLUSIONS: Results support ATT causally interrupting self-focused states and that ATT is particularly effective in reducing cognitive anxiety among individuals who are self-focused. PMID: 29929054 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Study protocol: Mobilizing Asian men in Canada to reduce stigma of mental illness.

Study protocol: Mobilizing Asian men in Canada to reduce stigma of mental illness. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Jun 18;: Authors: Guruge S, Fung KP, Sidani S, Este D, Morrow M, McKenzie K, Wong JP Abstract BACKGROUND: The available evidence on interventions addressing the stigma of mental illness is limited because of small samples, lack of diversity in study samples, and exclusion of people living with mental illness. To date, no published studies have evaluated anti-stigma interventions for Asian men in Canada. Aim This paper describes the protocol of a study to evaluate psychological and collective empowerment interventions (ACT, CEE, and ACT+CEE) in addressing self-stigma and social stigma in Asian communities in three urban settings in Canada: Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. The study targets Asian men living with or affected by mental illness, and community leaders interested in stigma reduction and advocacy. METHODS: Guided by a population health promotion framework and an ecological approach to health, the study will use a repeated measure design with mixed methods for data collection. In total, 2160 participants will be enrolled to detect moderate-to-large effect sizes, while accounting for possible attrition. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three interventions or a control group, using a randomization matrix. Established measures will be used to collect outcome data at pretest, post-test, and 3 and 6 months follow-up, along with focus group discussions and monthly activity logs. Mixed linear models will compare participants' stigma, psychological flexibility, valued life domains, mindfulness, stigma, and empowerment readiness within and between groups. DISCUSSION: The project will generate new knowledge on the applicability and effectiveness of evidence-based psychological and collective empowerment interventions (ACT, CEE, and ACT+CEE) in addressing stigma of mental illness and mobilizing community leadership. PMID: 29928996 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

Related Articles Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 20;6:CD010912 Authors: Shrestha N, Kukkonen-Harjula KT, Verbeek JH, Ijaz S, Hermans V, Pedisic Z Abstract BACKGROUND: A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -10 minutes per day, 95% CI -45 to 24, two studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work. PMID: 29926475 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Effects of Mind⁻Body Movements on Balance Function in Stroke Survivors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Related Articles Effects of Mind⁻Body Movements on Balance Function in Stroke Survivors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jun 20;15(6): Authors: Zou L, Yeung A, Li C, Chiou SY, Zeng N, Tzeng HM, Wang L, Ren Z, Dean T, Thomas GA Abstract Objective: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression to determine if mind⁻body movements (MBM) could be effective in rehabilitating balance function among stroke survivors. Methods: A literature search was conducted using major Chinese and English electronic databases from an inception until January 2018. Randomized controlled studies were included in our meta-analysis. Data was independently extracted by two review authors using a pre-developed table and confirmed by a third party to reach a consensus. Pooled effect size (Hedge’s g) was computed while the random-effect model was set. Results: The meta-analytic results showed a significant benefit of the MBM intervention on increased balance function compared to the control groups (Hedge’s g = 1.59, CI 0.98 to 2.19, p < 0.001, I² = 94.95%). Additionally, the meta-regression indicated that the total number of sessions (β = 0.00142, 95% CI 0.0039 to 0.0244, p = 0.0067) and dose of weekly training (β = 0.00776, 95% CI 0.00579 to 0.00972, p = 0.00) had significantly positive effects on balance function. Conclusions: The study encouraging findings indicate the rehabilitative effect of a MBM intervention for balance function in stroke survivors. However, there were significant limitations in the design among several of the included trials. Additional studies with more robust methodologies are needed to provide a more definitive conclusion. PMID: 29925770 [PubMed - in process]