|
Author (Year)
|
Population Characteristics
|
Methods
|
Intervention
|
Control
|
Outcomes of Interest
|
Instrument, if applicable
|
Critical Findings
|
#
|
Country
|
Age, Mean (SD), Range
|
Sex
|
Previous QG Practice
|
Type of QG
|
Balance
|
Liu et al. (2015) [64] #
|
95
|
China
|
QG: 67.1 (6.18)
C: 66.63 (5.98)
|
QG: 9M, 38F
C: 11M, 37F
|
None
|
BDJ
|
12 weeks, instruction/practice with QG professional for two weeks (twice a week, 30-40 min each), then practice for 10 weeks (twice a week, 30-40 min each)
Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks
|
QG and health education, N=47
|
Walking and health education, N=48
|
Study efficacy of BDJ on falls and balance of Chinese senior with chronic disease
|
1) Falls (MFES)
|
At 12 weeks, QG vs. C:
1) significant improvement of MFES scores among intervention group, 132.41±12.59 vs. 123.4±14.3, p<.05
|
Yang et al. (2007) [63]
|
49
|
U.S.
|
QG: 80.2 (9.02), 60-97
C: 80.9 (7.97), 67-94
|
QG: 5M, 28F
C: 5M, 11F
|
NR
|
Tai Chi Chen style essential 48 form and QG meditation
|
6 months, 3 days a week, 60 min each session
Data taken at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months
|
N=33
|
Wait-list, N=16
|
Evaluate changes in balance mechanism from Tai Chi Qigong program
|
1) Posture (SOT)
2) Stability (BOS, feet opening angle)
|
At 6 months, between QG and C:
1) Relative SOT vestibular ratios for the QG group were 47% greater than C, p<0.01
2) BoS measurements were 27% greater for the QG group than C, p<0.01.
No differences were observed in feet opening angle.
For QG group:
1) Normalized SOT vestibular ratio scores increased significantly by 34% above baseline at 2 months (p<0.01), and increased 6% between 2 months and 6 months (p>.05)
2) The normalized BoS score was 28% above baseline at T2 (P<0.01) and was maintained at 30% above baseline T6 (P<0.01).
|
Wenneberg et al. (2004) [65]
|
31
|
Sweden
|
33-80
|
17F, 19M
|
NR
|
NR
|
12 weeks (Weekend immersion, then 45–50 min once a week for 4 weeks, then every other week for 8 weeks with instructor)
Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks
|
N=16
|
Wait-List, N=15
|
Effects of QG in patients with muscular dystrophy
|
1) Balance (BBS)
2) QoL (SF-36)
3) Coping (WCQ)
4) Depression (MADRS)
|
After 12 weeks,
1) no between group difference (p=.128)
2) significant difference between groups in general health perceptions after intervention (p=.027), none in other areas
3)significant between-group difference in positive reappraisal (p=.052), none in other areas
4) no significant differences between group or within group
|
Cognitive Function
|
Oh et al. (2012) [66]
|
81
|
Australia
|
QG: 64.6 (12.3)
C: 61.1 (11.0)
|
QG: 18F, 18M
C: 20F, 20M
|
None
|
MQ (Daoyin)
|
10 weeks, two supervised 90-min sessions per week.
Data collected at baseline and 10 weeks
|
N=37
|
Usual care, N=44
|
Evaluate effects of MQ on cognitive function, quality of life, and inflammation
|
1) Cognitive function (EORTC-CF and FACT-Cog)
2) QoL (FACT-G)
3) Inflammation (CRP)
|
At 10 weeks, QG compared to C:
1) improved cognitive function (EORTC), mean difference=7.78 (CI, -0.35 to 15.92), p=.01
Improved cognitive function (FACT-Cog), mean difference=4.70 (CI, -.30 to 9.71), p=.03
2) improved total QoL, mean difference 12.66 (CI, 8.00 to 17.32), p<.001
3) less inflammation, mean difference=-0.72 (CI, -1.37 to -0.07), p=.04
|
Diabetes
|
Wei and Wu (2014) [67] #
|
60
|
China
|
54-73
QG: 63.9 (7.6)
Walking: 64.8 (5.8)
C: 65.3 (6.0)
|
38M
22F
|
None
|
BDJ
|
12 weeks, at least 5 days/week, 3 times a day
Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks
|
QG, N=20
Walking group, N=20
|
N=20
|
Observe the clinical efficacy of BDJ on type 2 diabetes patient’s health states.
|
1) Diabetes related health status (CSSD-70)
2) QoL (SF-36)
|
At 12 weeks, QG versus control group:
1) significantly better diabetes-related health: 85.2±3.1 vs. 77.4±6.2, p<.05
2) significantly better quality of life
Physical component: 88±10.9 vs, 82.4±7.4, p<.05
Mental component: 77.7±9.3 vs. 67±7.9, p<.05
|
Pain
|
Cai et al. (2015) [57]#
|
60
|
China
|
QG: 50.8 (8.0)
C: 49.9 (8.0)
|
QG: 16M, 14F
C: 17M, 13F
|
None
|
BDJ
|
6 months, twice a day, 30 min each
VAS data collected baseline and 1 month
Subjective pain data collected at 1 month and 6 months
|
N=30
|
N=30
|
Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on the treatment and recovery of patients with spinal disease.
|
1) Pain (VAS)
2) subjective pain assessment
|
After 1 month, QG vs. control group:
1) 3.5± 1.1 vs. 4.0±1.3, p<.05
2) QG: 14 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 7 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (70%).
Control: 7 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 6 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (43.3%).
After 6 months:
2) QG: 20 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 6 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (86%)
Control: 11 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 5 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (53%).
|
Wang et al. (2014) [59]
|
72
|
China
|
QG: 57.06 (8.96)
C: 59.37 (6.51)
|
QG: 27F, 7M
C: 24F, 11M
|
None within 6 months
|
BDJ
|
6 months (2 hours a day training for first two weeks, then 30 min collective exercise daily)
Data collected at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months
|
N=36
|
Weekly 30 min telephone interview, N=36
|
Observe long-term effects of regular BDJ exercises on chronic neck pain
|
1) Pain (VAS, NPQ)
2) SF-36
|
At 6 months, differences between BDJ and control
1) less pain (VAS): 48.97 (18.54) vs. 57.71 (12.91), p=.026
less pain (NPQ): 20.17 (17.43) vs. 27.25 (9.59), p=.04
2) all NS except improved health transition, 28.03 vs. 41.77, p=.002
|
Lynch et al. (2012) [81]
|
100
|
Canada
|
QG: 52.81 (8.91)
C: 52.13 (8.56)
|
QG: 3M, 50F
C: 1M, 46F
|
None
|
CFQ
|
Training over 3 half-days followed by weekly review/practice for 8 weeks
Asked to practice 45-60 minutes per day
Data collected at baseline, 6 months
|
N=53
|
Wait-list, N=47
|
Effects of CFQ on pain impact of fibromyalgia
|
1) Pain (PI-NRS)
2) Fibromyalgia impact (FIQ)
3) Sleep (PSQI)
|
QG group, change from baseline at 6 months
1) -1.30 (2.09), p=.003, 38.4% saw clinically meaningful improvements, p=.02
2) -15.19 (19.86), p=.003, 56.2% saw clinically meaningful improvements, p=.02
3) -2.86 (3.47), p=.008, 49.3% saw clinically meaningful improvements, p=.01
|
Wei et al. (2012) [115] #
|
62
|
China
|
QG: 29.39 (11.35), 15-58
C: 31.97 (12.15), 18-61
|
QG: 25M, 6F
C: 26M, 5F
|
none
|
BDJ
|
3 months, twice a day, 15-20 minutes each session
Data collected at baseline and 3 months
|
N31
|
N=31
|
Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on the inflammation index of AS patients
|
1) Pain (VAS)
2) Disease symptoms (ASAS 20)
|
At 3 months, differences between QG and control
1) Pain: 1.68±0.60 vs 2.48±0.69, p<.05
2) Physical Function:2.13±0.7 vs 3.25±0.91, p<.05
Thoracic activity:4.3±1.32 vs 3.66±1.07, p<.05
Schober back flex: 4.69±1.39 vs 3.79±1.26, p<.05
|
von Trott et al. (2009) [69]
|
117
|
Germany
|
76 (8), 55+
|
6M, 111F
|
NR
|
NR
|
3 months, 24 sessions total, 45 minutes each of qigong or exercise therapy
Data collected and baseline, 3 months, and 6 months
|
Qigong therapy, N=38
Exercise therapy, N=39
|
Waiting list control, N=32
|
Evaluate effectiveness of QG compared to exercise therapy and no treatment
|
1) Average neck pain (VAS)
2) Neck pain and disability (NPAD)
3) Depression (ADS)
|
at 3 months, NS difference between QG and C (95% CI)
1) -11.0 (-24.0 to 2.1), p=.10
2) -6.7 (-15.4 to 2.1), p=.14
3) -1.0 (-5.2 to 3.1), p=.62
|
Lansinger et al. (2007) [68]
|
122
|
Sweden
|
QG: 44.9 (12.3), 20-62
C: 42.8 (1.4), 21-65
|
Q: 44F, 16M
C: 42F, 20M
|
NR
|
Biyun
|
3 months, 1-2 sessions a week, 1 hour (10-12 session total)
Data collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months after intervention, and 12 months after intervention
|
N=60
|
Exercise Therapy, n=62
|
Effect on long-term neck pain
|
1) Pain (diary, VAS, NDI)
|
1) No differences between groups for NP frequency, average NP in the most recent week, current NP, NP diary, and NDI.
Patients improved immediately after intervention and at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups: above 50% for average NP in the most recent week, NP diary, NDI. and current NP (not for the time immediately after the intervention period).
|
Yang et al. (2005) [116]
|
40
|
Korea
|
QG: 72.58 (5.41)
C: 72.67 (7.49)
|
QG: 13F, 6M
C:19F, 2M
|
NR
|
EQT
|
4 weeks, twice a week
QG: 20 minutes receiving Qi
C: lay in similar position but without Qi
Data collected at baseline, week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, and week 6
|
N=19
|
Wait-list, N=21
|
Effects of EQT on pain and mood states
|
1) Pain (VAS)
2) Mood (POMS)
|
1) pain intensity decreased linearly over time in QG group but not in control group. Significant between-group time improvement in QG versus control [F(5,190)=13.8, p<.0001, HF-e=.95]
2) positive mood: significant between-group time improvement in QG versus control [F(5,190)=22/1, p<.0001]; gradually increased in QG but decreased in control
Negative mood: significant between-group time improvement in QG versus control [F(5,190)=10.9, p<.0001, HF-e=.69].
|
Lee et al. (2001) [117]
|
40
|
Korea
|
QG: 73.05 (5.67)
C: 72.20 (7.36)
|
QG: 14F, 6M
C: 18F, 2M
|
NR
|
CSDB
|
2 weeks, qi therapy twice a week for 10 minutes (total 4 times)
Performed by certified Qi therapist
Data collected at pre-therapy, one week, and two weeks
|
N=20
|
N=20
Received general care in the same frequency
|
Assess effects of Qi therapy on reducing pain and enhancing mood states
|
1) Pain level (VAS)
2) Mood states (POMS)
|
Significant group x time interaction and better scores in QG group vs. control
1) Positive mood: F(2, 76)=21.29, p=.0001; QG vs. Control: 9.25±4.13 vs. 3.35±2.85, p<.005
Negative mood: F(2,76)=2.93, p=.06; QG vs. Control: 16.90±11.15 vs. 25.20±16.61, NS
2) Pain: F(2,76)=9.379, p<.0001)
QG group has lower pain than control at 2 weeks (p<.005)
|
Physical function/fitness
|
Wang et al. (2015) [118]#
|
26
|
China
|
60+
QG: 66.79 (4.76)
C: 65.59 (3.59)
|
QG: 7M, 6F
C: 3M, 10F
|
None
|
YJJ
|
12 weeks, QG practice 3 x a week, 1 hour each
QG participants received 1 week of training prior to intervention
Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks
|
N=13
|
N=13
|
Explore the effect of YJJ exercise on the prevention of Skeletal muscle weakness among senior adults
|
1) Physical function (Knee extensor /flexor peak torque, peak torque/body weight, and average power)
|
At 12 weeks, QG vs. control:
1) Statistically significant improvement of extensor peak torque 60°/s (96.35±31.18 vs. 76.23±24.39), extensor peak torque/body weight 60°/s (141.03±33.3 vs. 113.05±33.3), extensor average power 60°/s (49.1±12.68 vs. 40.1±11.69), and extensor average power 180°/s (49.63±16.65 vs. 36.75±13.8) among the intervention group, p<.05
|
Xiao and Zhuang (2015) [62]
|
100
|
China
|
QG: 68.17 (2.27)
C: 66.52 (2.13)
|
QG: 68.75%M
C: 70.83%M
|
None
|
BDJ
|
Four 45-min sessions/week, daily walking 30 min for 6 months
Data collected at enrollment, discharge from rehab program and 6 months
|
N=50
|
Independent walking, N=50
|
Investigate effectiveness of BDJ on symptoms related to gait, functional mobility and sleep
|
1) Fatigue (UPDRS)
2) Functional mobility (BBS, 6MWT, TUG)
3) Sleep (PDSS)
4) Gait (Vicon 512 motion capture system, Freezing of Gait)
|
Across 6 months, comparing QG and control:
1) significant group × time interactions, with the QG showing a significant decrease in impairment measured by the UPDRS-III score (P = 0.038).
2) significant group × time interactions, with the QG showing greater improvements in the BBS (P = 0.037) and 6MW (P = 0.045), and greater decrease in the TUG (P = 0.028)
3) significant group x time interactions, with QG showing significant decrease in PDSS-2 total score (p=.045)
4) significant group × time interactions, with the QG showing a significant increase in the gait speed (p=.02)
|
Xiao and Zhuang (2015) [61]
|
126
|
China
|
71.1 (2.7), 65-85
QG: 72.2 (1.7)
C: 70.9 (1.4)
|
QG: 82.1% M
C: 93.6%M
|
None
|
LQG
|
6 months, four 45 minute sessions per week
Data collected at baseline and 6 months
|
N=63
|
30 min walk daily, N=63
|
Investigate effectiveness of LQG in promoting physical and psychosocial function in individuals with COPD
|
1) Functional capacity (6MWT)
2) General health (SF-36)
|
1) Significant group by time interactions, with the QG group showing greater improvements on the 6MW (p=.04) over the 6-month study period than controls, and significant improvement for QG group between baseline and 6 months (301.0±10.9 vs. 321.5±15.5, p=.02)
2) Non-significant group by time interactions between QG and control over 6 months (p=.54), and significant improvement for QG group (43.9±3.5 vs. 51.8±5.6, p<.001)
|
Li et al. (2014) [119]
|
110
|
China
|
34.2 (14.6), 20-59
QG: 35.5
C: 32.9
|
QG: 19M, 39F
C: 17M, 38F
|
NR
|
BDJ
|
16 weeks, QG 3 times or more each week, 30–60 minutes each time
QG training 2 weeks prior to intervention
|
N=55
|
Wait-list N=55
|
Effects of BDJ on promoting physical fitness
|
1) Physical function (SR, ES, aerobic endurance)
|
1) SR: better physical fitness posttest-pretest scores, t=3.46, p=.001
ES: worse time but NS
Aerobic endurance: improved but NS
|
Amano et al. (2013) [79]
|
21
|
US
|
TC: 64 (13)
QG: 68 (7)
|
TC: 7M, 5F
C: 7M, 2F
|
None
|
NR
|
16 weeks, 2x week, 60 mins/session for both TC and QG
|
Tai Chi (Yang-style), N=12
|
QG meditation, N=9
|
Impact of Tai Chi vs. qigong on gait and gait performance
|
1) Gait initiation (center-of-pressure measures)
2) Gait performance (cadence, gait velocity, step length, step duration, swing time, double lib support time, gait asymmetry)
3) Parkinsonian disabilities (UPDRS-III)
|
1) significantly shifted their COP more toward the initial swing limb after the 16-week period when compared to the TC group (p<0.01, η2=0.39).
2) no significant difference between groups in any variables (ps>.05)
3) no significant difference between groups (ps>.05)
|
Chan et al. (2011) [70]
|
206
|
HK
|
73, 55-88
|
TCQ: 69M, 1F
Exercise: 61M, 8F
C: 58M, 9F
|
None
|
13 form TCQ
|
3 months
TCQ: Two 60-min sessions per week
Exercise: pursed lip and diaphragmatic breathing
Data collected at baseline and 3 months
|
TCQ, N=70
Exercise, N=69
|
Control, N=67
|
Evaluate the effectiveness of TCQ in enhancing respiratory functions and activity tolerance in individuals with COPD
|
1) Lung functions: Pre-broncholator spirometry
2) 6-min walk test
3) Dyspnoea and fatigue: Borg scale
4) Oxygen saturation
|
Results of RANCOVA demonstrated significant differences between baseline and 3 months, with TCQ group showing greatest improvements.
1) Forced volume capacity (FVC): 1.97±0.62 vs. 2.10±0.62 liters (p= .002), Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1): 0.89±0.38 vs. 0.96±0.39 liters (p< .001)
2) 6MWT: 297.91 ±68.53 vs. 33.074±61.86 meters (p< .001)
3) NS
4) NS
|
Maddali et al. (2011) [120]
|
30
|
Italy
|
G1: 56.56 (9.1)
G2: 57.91 (13.50)
|
NR
|
NR
|
Dan tien, Zhang zhuang, Flying Pheonix
|
7 weeks, 2 sessions/week for first three weeks, 1 session/week for weeks 4-7 (total 10 sessions)
Cross-over design with 1 week interval
Ressegaier Method session is 60 min
QG is 45 min
Data collected at baseline, week 7 (end intervention 1), week 15 (end intervention 2), week 27
|
Ressegaier Method, N=15
QG, N=15
|
None
|
Evaluate Ressegaier method and QG in fibromyalgia rehabilitation
|
1) disability (FIQ)
2) Pain (NRS)
3) Psychological outcomes (HADS)
|
Comparing baseline and week 7 for QG first group (G2)
1) less disability: 64.58±16.54 vs. 43.16±21.86, p<.05
2) less pain: 7.82±0.89 vs. 3.20±1.60, p<.001
3) less anxiety: 9.56±5.00 vs. 5.33±2.60, p<.001
Less depressive symptoms: 7.89±6.09 vs. 3.56±4.64, p<.001
Comparing baseline to week 27 (after both Ressegaier Method, QG, and follow up time)
1) G1 less disability: 66.05±13.50 vs. 44.72±16.67, p<.001
G2 less disability: 64.58±16.54 vs. 44.40±28.41, p<.05
2) G1 less pain: 7.58±0.89 vs. 3.51±0.65, p<.001
G2 less pain: 7.82±0.89 vs. 3.20±1.60, p<.001
3) G1 less anxiety: 8.91±2.51 vs. 5.64±3.32, p<.001
G1 less depressive symptoms: 9.45±2.88 vs. 6.64±3.01, p<.001
G2 less anxiety: 9.56±5.00 vs. 5.33±2.29, p<.001
G2 less depressive symptoms: 7.89±6.09 vs. 3.78±4.52, p<.001
|
Chen et al. (2008) [55]
|
112
|
US
|
H1: 63.9 (9.7)
H2: 58.8 (7.0)
C: 62.9 (9.2)
|
H1: 14M, 31F
H2: 3M, 9F
C: 13M, 36F
|
Experience with some CAM therapies, none with EQT
|
EQT
|
3 weeks, 5-6 sessions. Each healer had a different technique
H1: 4-7 minutes
H2: 5-10 minutes
C: Chinese man without experience mimicked EQT movements
Data collected at baseline, 3 weeks, and 3 months
|
H1: N=45
H2: n=12
|
Sham treatment, N=52
|
Effects of EQT on osteoarthritis pain and functional
|
1) Osteoarthritis pain and function (WOMAC)
|
1) No difference between sham and healer 1
Difference between sham group and healer 2 for pain (p<.01), functionality (<.01) and total WOMAC scores (p<.01) at 3 month follow up
Belief in CAM therapy was a significant covariate in predicting treatment outcome immediately after treatment (p<.05)
|
Pippa et al. (2007) [121]
|
43
|
Italy
|
68 (8)
|
30M, 13F
|
NR
|
NR
|
16 weeks of intervention
QG: two 90-minute training sessions per week, 32 total
Follow-up 16 weeks after intervention
|
N=22
|
Wait-list, n=21
|
Effects of QG on functional capacity
|
1) Physical function (6MWT)
|
1) Significant improvement in QG group versus control group at two time points: pre-training versus post-training (p<.001) and pre-training and follow-up (p=.008)
|
Burini et al. (2006) [122]
|
26
|
Italy
|
65.2 (6.5)
|
9M, 17F
|
NR
|
NR
|
Crossover design (total 22 weeks):
7 weeks, 20 sessions of 50 min, 3 days weekly
8 weeks of no treatment
7 weeks, 20 sessions of 50 min, 3 days weekly of remaining treatment
Data collected at baseline, after first intervention, after no treatment, after second treatment
|
QG, N=15
Aerobic Training sessions, N=11
|
None
|
Effects of QG versus aerobic training in subjects with Parkinson’s
|
1) Impairment from Parkinson’s (UPDRS)
2) Depression (BDS)
3) Physical function (6MWT)
|
1-2) All changes after QG training were not significant, p>0.05
3) Group x time differences significant: F=5.4, p=.002
Aerobic training group showed significant improvements t=-2.7, p=.005, while QG group changes were not significant
|
Schmitz‐Hübsch et al. (2006) [58]
|
56
|
Germany
|
QG: 64 (8)
C: 63 (8)
|
QG: 24M, 8F
C: 19M, 5F
|
None
|
“Frolic of the crane”, sitting BDJ
|
24 weeks (Two courses of 8 weeks with an 8-week pause in between), 90 minutes each, 16 visits total, 1X/week
Encouraged to practice at home
Data collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months
|
N=32
|
N=24
|
Evaluate effects of QG on motor symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease
|
1) Motor symptoms (UPDRS-III)
2) Quality of life (PDQ-39)
3) Depression (MADRS)
|
1) The proportion of patients who improved in UPDRS- III, was significantly greater in QG group at 3 months (P=0.0080), while at 6 months (P =0.0503) and 12 months (P= 0.635) was not significant.
2) no significant between-group differences, data not reported
3) The prevalence of mild or moderate depression was 48% in the QG group and 41% in the control group at baseline compared with 33% in both groups at 6 months
Proportions of patients using antidepressants were 19% (QG) and 24% (control) at baseline but shifted to 16% (QG) and 32% (control) at 12-month follow-up
|
Stenlund et al. (2005) [123]
|
95
|
Sweden
|
QG: 77 (3), 73-92
C: 78 (3), 73-84
|
66M, 29F
|
NR
|
TC and medicinal QG
|
12 weeks, 60 min QG and 120 min of discussion on various themes, meeting weekly
|
N=48
|
Usual Care (n=47)
|
Effect of QG on physical ability on subjects with coronary artery disease
|
1) Physical function (Perceived activity level, tandem standing, right/left one-leg stance, right/left co-ordination, climb boxes
|
Significant improvement for QG compared to Control group in self-estimated level of physical activity (P = 0.011), and their performance in the one-leg stance test for the right leg (P = 0.029), co-ordination (P = 0.021) and the box-climbing test for right leg (P= 0.035)
|
Astin et al. (2003) [124]
|
128
|
US
|
18-70
47.7 (10.6)
|
QG: 1M, 63F
C: 64F
|
NR
|
Mindfulness meditation with QG movement
|
8 weeks, 1x/week, 150 minutes (90 min mindfulness, 60 min Qigong)
Data collected at baseline, 8 weeks, 14 weeks, and 24 weeks
|
N=64
|
Education and support group, N=64
|
Test benefits of a mind-body intervention for individuals with fibromyalgia
|
1) Fibromyalgia impact (FIQ)
2) Pain (SF-36)
3) Depression (BDI)
|
No significant differences between groups at 24 weeks
Baseline vs. 24 weeks, QG improvement:
1) 57.8±10.8 vs. 46.4±19.5, p<.01
2) 32.3±14.4 vs. 41.6±22.2, p<.05
3) 16.7±7.4 vs. 12.3±7.6, p<.001
|
Psychological
|
Hsieh et al. (2015) [77]
|
66
|
Taiwan
|
QG: 81.21 (6.24)
C: 83.42 (7.87)
|
QG: 13M, 20F
C: 18M, 15F
|
NR
|
LQG
|
4 weeks, twice a week, 60 min led by LQG practitioner
Data collected at baseline week 4
|
N=33
|
N=33
|
Determine psychological and physiological effects of LQG on elderly in an institutionalized setting
|
1) Memory (MMSE)
2) Mood (Faces Scale)
3) Depression (GDS)
4) Cortisol levels
|
Between baseline and week 4, QG showed:
1) improved Mini-Mental State Examination scores (Z = −2.28; p<.05), NS difference with control (Z=-.27, p=.79)
2) improved mood states (Z = −4.47; p<.001), significant difference with control (Z=5.87, p<.001)
3) decreased depression scores (Z = 3.79; p<.001), significant difference with control (Z=3.27, p=.001)
4) NS change in cortisol (Z=-.143, p=.15), significant difference with control (Z=3.02, p=.003)
|
Chen et al. (2013) [76]
|
96
|
China
|
QG: 45.3 (6.3), 29-58
C: 44.7 (9.7), 35-62
|
96F
|
None
|
Guolin (walking qigong)
|
5-6 weeks, five 40-minute qigong classes
Data collected at baseline, middle of radiotherapy, last week of radiotherapy, 1 month post radiotherapy, and 3 months post radiotherapy
|
N=49
|
Wait-list control, N=47
|
Examine QG effects on QoL on women with breast cancer during radiotherapy
|
1) Depression (CES-D)
2) Fatigue (BFI)
3) Sleep (PSQI)
4) QoL (FACT-G)
5) Cortisol
|
1) Significant group differences in depression over time (F[3,281] = 2.62; P =.05).
QG depression score at baseline vs. 3 months post-radiotherapy: 13.1±8.9 vs. 9.6±6.6
Control depression score at baseline vs. 3 months post-radiotherapy: 12.2±9.2 vs. 11.2±9.8
2-5) No significant differences between QG and Control groups.
|
Tsang et al. (2013) [125]
|
116
|
HK
|
QG: 83.3 (6.3)
C: 84.9 (6.0)
|
QG: 14M, 47F
C: 15M, 40F
|
NR
|
Yan Chai Yi Jin Ten-Section Brocades
|
12 weeks, two 60 minute sessions per week
Data collected at baseline, week 6, 12 weeks, and 20 weeks
|
N=61
|
Newspaper reading group, n=55
|
Effectiveness of QG for improving psychosocial, cognitive, physical, and physiological functioning in frail older adults
|
1) Psychological (GDS and PBQ)
2) Cognitive function (LOTCA-G)
3) Physical function (Handgrip strength)
4) Physiological functioning (HR, BP)
|
Group x time interaction showing effectiveness of QG:
1) NS interaction on depression [F(2,228)=1.16, p=.32]
Significant interaction on overall health status [F(1,57)=15.26, p=.0001]
2) only significant interaction effect for thinking operations [F(2, 228)=4.05, p=.02]
3) NS interaction in handgrip strength [left: p=.70, right: p=.58]
4) significant effects on resting heart rate [F(2,228)=3.14, p=.045], but not on SBP (p=.22) or DBP (p=.88)
After intervention compared to baseline, QG group showed
1) Significant reduction of depressive symptoms [F=11.68, p<.025]
|
Tsang et al. (2013) [78]
|
37
|
HK
|
QG: 80 (7)
C: 81 (9)
|
QG: 5M, 16F
C: 7M, 10F
|
NR
|
BDJ
|
12 weeks, three 45 min sessions per week
Data collected at baseline, week 6, week 12, week 16, week 24
|
N=21
|
Newspapers reading, N=17
|
Examine psychological, physical and neurophysiological effects of a QG exercise program on depressed elders
|
1) Depression (GDS)
2) Physical (grip strength)
3) Neurophysiological (cortisol)
|
1) significant group x time effects on GDS [F(2,35)=5.72; p=.007]
QG had higher response and remission rates than the comparison group concerning depression (43% vs. 6%, 24% vs. 6%, respectively; ps<.01)
2) QG: improvement for right hand by 18%, p=.034. Improvement for left hand by 26%, p=.164
3) QG: Non-significant decreasing trend of cortisol level by 18.5%
|
Chow et al. (2012) [126]
|
65
|
HK
|
21-64
QG:43.79 (10.37)
C: 44.66 (11.86)
|
QG: 12M, 22F
C: 11M, 23F
|
None
|
Chan Mi gong
|
12 weeks, Weekly 90 min practice with instructor for first 8 weeks, then 4 weeks of home practice
Data collected in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12
|
N=34
|
Wait-list, N=31
|
Investigate whether QG helps to reduce stress and anxiety
|
1) Mood States (DASS-21)
2) QoL (ChQOL)
|
Between group comparisons between week 1 and week 12, QG vs. Control:
1) significant differences in overall psychological wellbeing (F[1,63]=4.26, p.043, n2=.063)
2) significant differences in QoL (F[1,63]=6.04, p=.017, n2=.088)
Between week 1 and week 12, QG experienced:
1) significant decrease in stress (F[1,63]=5.77, p=.019) and anxiety (F[1,63]=4.72, p=.034)
2) significant increase in overall QoL (F[1,63]=6.04, p=.017)
|
Chan et al. (2011) [75]
|
40
|
HK
|
25-64
QG: 49.65 (7.27)
C: 48.92 (8.11)
|
QG: 7M, 13F
C: 7M, 13F
|
NR
|
DMBI
|
4 weeks, weekly 90-min sessions
Data collected at baseline and 4 weeks
|
N=20
|
Group CBT, N=20
|
Effectiveness of a short-term mind-body intervention program on improving depressive mood
|
1) Depression (BDI-II)
|
1) QG: significant reduction in depressive mood after treatment [baseline = 14, SD = 10.42; post-test =6.30, SD = 6.67; t(19) = 3.82, p=.001; effect size (Cohen’s d) = 0.85]
Extent of reduction for QG vs. CBT was significantly greater (p<.05)
|
Johansson et al. (2011) [56]
|
59
|
Sweden
|
50.8 (12.9)
|
51 F, 8M
|
Average 4.8±3.1 years of practice
|
Jichu Gong
|
30-min practice
Control: listened to a 30 min lecture
Data collected at baseline and after 30 min exercise
|
N=28
|
Lecture on Chinese medicine, N=31
|
Investigate acute psychological effects of QG among regular QG exercisers
|
1) Depression (POMS)
2) Anxiety (STAI)
3) Anger (POMS)
4) Fatigue (POMS)
|
Time x group interactions:
1) Depression: F(1, 57) = 10.61, h2 =.16, power=.89, p<.002
2) Anxiety: F(1, 57) = 7.67, h2 =.12, power= .78, p < .008
3) Anger: F(1, 57) = 8.41, h2 =.13, power=.81, p <.0005
4) Fatigue: F(1, 57)=18.06, h2 = .24, power= .99, p< .0005
Changes in QG group after exercise:
1) lower depression, F(1, 57)=17.10, h2 = .23, power= .98, p< .0005
2) lower anxiety, F(1, 57)=29.42, h2 =.34, power=1.0, p<.0005
3) no significant changes
4) lower fatigue, F(1, 57)=11.21, h2 = .16, power= .91, p<.001
|
Stenlund et al. (2009) [127]
|
82
|
Sweden
|
25-65
QG: 43.8 (9.7)
C: 44.7 (8.6)
|
QG: 7M, 34F
C: 7M, 34F
|
NR
|
NR
|
12 weeks, twice a week, 1 hour group practice plus home practice
Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks
|
N=41
|
Usual care, N=41
|
Evaluate efficacy of QG in rehabilitation for patients with burnout
|
1) Burnout (SMBQ)
|
1) At 12 weeks, NS difference between groups, p=.70
QG: significantly lower median score after program, 5.8 (5.0-6.0) vs. 5.4 (4.4-5.8), p<.001
C: significantly lower median score after program, 5.8 (4.8-6.2) vs. 5.0 (4.5-5.7), p<.001
|
Griffith et al. (2008) [128]
|
37
|
US
|
QG: 52 (9)
C: 50 (10)
|
QG: 12F, 4M
C: 17F, 5M
|
None
|
BDJ
|
6 weeks, twice a week, 1 hour class
Asked to practice for 30 min on non-class days
Data collected at baseline and 6 weeks
|
N=16
|
Wait-list, control, N=21
|
Investigate effectiveness of QG in reducing stress in hospital staff
|
1) Stress (PSS)
2) QoL (SF-36)
3) Pain (VAS)
|
1) Significant difference in reduction of perceived stress over time between QG and Control (t=-.2458, p=.02)
QG: decreased mean=-4.5±6.6
2) Significant difference in social functioning score over time between QG and control (t=2.035, p=.05)
3) NS difference in reduction of pain over time between QG and Control (t=-1.097, p=.28)
|
Haak and Scott (2008) [129]
|
57
|
Sweden
|
27-73
QG: 54.0 (9.4)
C: 53.4 (8.0)
|
57F
|
85% have used some form of CAM
|
Lotus method (He Hua QG)
EQT
|
7 weeks, 9 group session (Total 11.5 hours)
Encouraged to practice twice a day for 20 minutes
Received EQT twice during intervention
Data collected at baseline, 7 weeks, and 4 months
|
N=29
|
Wait-list, N=28
At 4 month follow up, control had received intervention
|
Evaluate the effects of QG on pain, quality of sleep, psychological health, work status, and use of medication
|
1) Anxiety (STAI)
2) Depression (BDI)
3) QoL (WHOQOL-BREF)
4) Pain (VNS)
|
Group x time differences between intervention and control at baseline to 7 weeks
1) anxiety: F(1,55)=5.81, p<.05
2) depression: F(1,55)=6.44, p<.01
3) quality of life: F(1,55)=4.03, p<.05
4)intensity of pain: F(1,55)=5.34, p<.05
Time interaction of combined (N=57) group changes after intervention (baseline, 7 weeks, 4 months)
1) decreased anxiety: F time=4.90, p<.01
2) decreased depressive symptoms: F time=6.80, p<.01
3) increased quality of life: F time=6.24, p<.01
4) decreased intensity of pain: F time=7.88, p<.001
|
Tsang et al. (2006) [130]
|
82
|
HK
|
QG: 82.11 (7.19)
C: 82.74 (6.83)
|
QG: 10M, 28F
C: 6M, 28F
|
NR
|
BDJ
|
16 weeks, 3 days a week, 30-45 min each
Data collected at baseline, 8 weeks, and 16 weeks
|
N=48
|
Newspaper Reading group of similar intensity, N=34
|
Understand the psycho-social effects of QG on elderly persons with depression
|
1) Depression (GDS)
2) Self-efficacy (CGSS)
|
Group x time interaction among the two groups at five different time points:
1) Depression [F(4, 77)=2.619, p=0.041],
2) Self-efficacy [F(4, 77)=11.693, p<0.001]
After practicing QG:
1) improvement in depression, significance not reported
2) improvement in self-efficacy, significance not reported
|
Tsang et al. (2003) [131]
|
50
|
HK
|
G: 72.9 (9.5)
C: 76.3 (8.4)
|
QG: 9M, 15F
C: 17M, 9F
|
NR
|
BDJ
|
12 weeks, 2 days/week, 60 min each
Data collected at baseline, midway, and post-program
|
N=24
|
Basic Rehabilitation activities, N=26
|
Assess if BDJ improves biopsychosocial health of participants
|
1) Depression (GDS)
2) Perceived benefit (PBQ)
|
1) repeated measures ANOVA of two groups is not significant [F(2, 39)=2.032, p=.145]
2) QG group has perceived improvement in physical health [19.36±2.79, t(21)=7.34, p<.001], overall ADL [14.75±2.12, t(7)=3.67, p=.008], psychological health [26.73±2.91, t(21)=9.22, p<.001], social relationship [11.05±1.94, t(21)=4.95, p<.001], and health in general [7.50±1.06, t(21)=6.65, p<.001]
|
Quality of Life
|
Oh et al. (2014) [72]
|
27
|
AU
|
QG: 56.9 (12.1)
C: 57.8 (10.8)
|
27F
|
None
|
MQ
|
10 weeks, once a week, 60 min group supervised class
Encouraged to practice at home for 30 min each day
Data collected at baseline, week 5, and week 10
|
N=14
|
Meditation, N=13
|
Examine the feasibility, safety, and effects of MQ in improving QoL in women with metastatic breast cancer
|
1) QoL (FACT-B)
2) Fatigue (FACT-F)
3) Perceived stress (PSS)
4) Neuropathic symptoms (FACT/ GOG-NTX)
|
At 10 weeks:
1) No significant differences between groups (p=0.84)
2) No significant differences between groups (p=0.71)
3) No significant differences between groups (p=0.52)
4) Significant group difference (0=0.014), QG improved while control deteriorated
|
Lin et al. (2012) [132]#
|
60
|
China
|
50-85
QG: 66.47 (8.26)
C: 64.9 (8.87)
|
QG: 24M, 6F
C: 22M, 8F
|
None
|
BDJ
|
23 weeks
Data collected at baseline, mid-intervention, and 23 weeks
|
N=30
|
N=30
|
Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on quality of life of patients after Coronary artery bypass grafting
|
1) QoL (QOLS)
2) Functional status (SAQ)
|
QG compared to Control group
1) improvement of QoL, p<.05
2) improvement of functional status, p<.05
|
Oh et al. (2010) [71]
|
162
|
Australia
|
31-86
QG: 60.1 (11.7)
C: 59.9 (11.3)
|
QG: 48F, 31M
C: 45F, 38M
|
None
|
MQ
|
10 weeks, two supervised 90-min sessions per week.
Participants encouraged practice at home every day for at least 39 min
Data collected
|
N=79
|
Usual care, N=83
|
Evaluate use of MQ compared with usual care to improve quality of life of cancer patients
|
1) QoL (FACT-G)
2) Fatigue (FACT-F)
3) Mood (POMS)
4) Inflammation (CRP)
|
At 10 weeks, QG compared to C (controlling for gender, age, status of cancer treatment, week 0 baseline scores, and intervention status)
1) improved overall QoL, mean difference=9.00 (CI, 5.62 to 12.36), p<.001
2) improved fatigue score, mean difference=5.70 (CI, 3.32 to 8.09), p<.001
3) improved total mood status, mean difference=-10.64 (CI, -19.81 to -1.47), p=.02
4) less inflammation, mean difference=-23.17 (CI, -37.08 to -9.26), p=.04
|
Oh et al. (2008) [73]
|
30
|
Australia
|
54 (9), 35-75
|
QG: 3M, 12F
C: 3M, 12F
|
None
|
MQ
|
8 weeks, once or twice a week, 90 mn class (15 min discussion, 30 min stretching and movement, 15 min seated movement, 30 min breathing)
Recommended practice at home very day for at least 1 hour
Data collected at baseline and week 8
|
N=15
|
Usual care, N=15
|
Examine impact of MQ for improving QoL, symptoms, side effects, and longevity
|
1) QoL (ERORTC QLQ-C 30)
2) Symptoms (ERORTC QLQ-C 30)
3) inflammation (CRP)
|
No significant differences between groups due to small sample size
For QG group changes from baseline to week 8
1) improvement in QoL (10.4, p=.005)
2) No significant changes in fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite, constipation, or diarrhea ps>.05
3) NS increase in CRP score +1.7
|
Wang et al. (2007) [60] #
|
200
|
China
|
Male: 61-65
QG: 63 (2.7)
C: 62.4 (2.6)
Female: 56-60
QG: 57.8 (2.6)
C: 56.9 (3.0)
|
QG: 60M, 60F
C: 40M, 40F
|
None
|
BDJ
|
6 months, 1 hour every day
Data collected at baseline and 6 months
|
N=120
|
N=80
|
explore the effect of BDJ exercise on quality of life of senior people.
|
1) QoL (SF-36)
|
Outcome were reported based on gender
After 6 months, QG vs. control groups:
1) Male:
SF-36 total: 78.4±14 vs. 67.7±10, p<.05
Female:
SF-36 total: 81.9±13 vs. 76.1±12, p<.05
|
Sleep
|
Liao et al. (2015) [133]
|
131
|
China
|
QG: 31.1 (10.46)
C: 31.6 (10.74)
|
QG: 10M, 52F
C: 23M, 44F
|
NR
|
BDJ
|
6 weeks, exercised 30 minutes 2x a day
Data collected at baseline, week 4, week 6, week 12, and week 18
|
N=64
|
N=67
|
Observe effect of BDJ on fatigue
|
1) Fatigue (FSAS)
|
From baseline to end of week 18
1) NS group x time interaction, p=.66
Significant difference over time: F=34.855, p<.001
Significant difference between groups: F=27.375, p<.001
QG improved between baseline and 18th week: 41.50±12.36 vs. 12.28±10.46
|
Larkey et al. (2014) [134]
|
87
|
US
|
40-75
QG: 57.7 (8.94)
C: 59.8 (8.93)
|
87F
|
None
|
QG/ TCE
|
12 weeks, 60 min sessions meeting 2x a week for the first 2 weeks and then once a week for the remainder
Asked to practice at home at least 30 min a day, 5 days per week
Data collected at baseline, post-intervention, 3 months later
|
N=45
|
Sham Qigong N=42
|
Compare QG/TCE with SQG on fatigue and other symptoms among breast cancer survivors
|
1) Fatigue (FSI)
2) Depression (BDI)
3) Sleep (PSQI)
|
1) Fatigue difference between intervention group and time (p=0.0116). The decrease in the FSI was significantly greater for the QG/TCE intervention at both the post-intervention (p=0.005) and 3-month follow-up (p=0.024)
2) No statistically significant interactions between groups, p=.94; showed significant decreases across time for QG/TCE and SQG (p<.001)
3) No statistically significant interactions between groups, p=.27; showed significant decreases across time for QG/TCE and SQG (p<.05)
|
Li and Wang (2014) [135] #
|
40
|
China
|
QG: 53.60, 41-69
C: 51.4 (9.2), 39-70
|
QG: 11M, 9F
C: 8M, 12F
|
none
|
BDJ
|
4 weeks, practice once a day, 30 min each
Data collected at baseline and 4 weeks
|
N=20
|
N=20
|
Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on insomnia among type 2 diabetes
|
1) Sleep (PSQI)
|
1) After 1 month, NS difference between QG and control groups, however there is a trend of improvement from baseline to 1 month for QG group (8.43±4.48 vs. 9.03±4.61)
|
Chan et al. (2012) [136]
|
50
|
HK
|
28-62
QG: 47.06 (9.54)
CBT: 47.39 (6.63)
WL: 45.44 (8.25)
|
QG: 2M, 15F
CBT: 5M, 13F
C: 4M, 12F
|
NR
|
DMBI
|
10 weeks, one weekly 90 min sessions for either DMBI or CBT
Data collected at baseline and 10 weeks
|
Two groups:
1) QG, N=17
2) CBT, N=18
|
Wait-list, N=16
|
Compare the effect of DMBI vs. CBT on improving sleep problems of patients with depression
|
1) sleep items (HRSD)
2) Total sleep time (hours)
3) Sleep onset latency (min)
4) Wake time after sleep onset (min)
|
For QG group, mean difference between baseline and 10 weeks:
1) -1.50 (1.51), p<.01
2) 0.79 (1.64), p=.03
3) -9.81 (21.25), p=.04
4) -12.10 (26.34), p=.09
For CBT and Control, no significant differences in pre- and post- treatment testing of sleep
|
Chen et al. (2012) [137]
|
56
|
Taiwan
|
71.75 (8.13)
QG: 70.48 (7.90)
C: 72.96 (8.30)
|
QG: 17F, 10M
C: 19F, 9M
|
None within 6 months
|
BDJ
|
12 weeks, 30-min home-based exercise, thrice a week.
Data collected at baseline, week 4, week 8, and week 12
|
N=28
|
N=28
|
Explore effectiveness of BDJ on sleep quality in Taiwanese elderly
|
1) Sleep quality (PSQI)
|
1) QG: significant improvement in their overall sleep quality (F = 26.04, p<.001)
After 12 weeks, mean scores of sleep quality were significantly improved in the exercise group over the control group in overall sleep quality (β = -5.10, p<.001)
|