Abstract
Background
This systematic review aims to examine existing randomized controlled trials on interventions adopting Body-Mind-Spirit (BMS) model and evaluated the effectiveness of holistic well-being outcomes. Following three key concepts of the BMS model, our review questions included (1) How was BMS defined? (2) What activities were included, and how were they related to BMS dimensions? (3) What were interventionists’ backgrounds, and whether they received BMS training? (4) What were holistic outcomes? and (5) What were the effectiveness and qualities of studies?
Methods
Searches were performed using nine databases for the studies published through August 2020. The process follows PRISMA protocol, and the “risk of bias” tool from the Cochrane Handbook was utilized to determine the quality of included studies.
Results
Across 20 included studies, 18 (90%) presented a BMS definition, but only seven (35%) included all three key concepts of the BMS model. Eight studies (40%) offered detailed descriptions of body, mind, and spirit sections, and 12 (60%) mentioned cultural factors. Only five (25%) specified the body, mind, and spirit activities, and only three (15%) reported the BMS training in detail. Seven studies (35%) showed effectiveness in holistic outcomes. Only three (15%) were considered as high quality.
Conclusion
A unified definition of the BMS model and the guideline to apply the BMS model to design and implement interventions are highly recommended to provide a standard framework for researchers to conduct future studies. The reason for low quality is because the lack of adequate allocation concealment and blindings.
Introduction
Holistic health is a state of internal balance, not just an absence of illness, 1 and emphasizes the importance of the connection of the mind, body, and spirit (BMS). 2 The concept of BMS in holism has been in practice worldwide for thousands of years in diversified philosophies and cultures, such as Taoism, Buddhism, Ayurveda, African and Hawaiian culture, and Greek philosophy.3,4 However, those holistic treatment methods were gradually replaced by the development of modern medicine. 5 The situation changed when the Holistic Health Movement (HHM) occurred during the New Age, promoting whole-person oriented healing.6,7 Since then, BMS has caught the attention of many practitioners and researchers, and become an essential aspect in many professions such as nursing and social work. 8 Nevertheless, there was no consolidated definition of BMS and of what should be included in BMS dimensions respectively, and how to properly apply this model to develop interventions that promote holistic well-being.
One BMS model that has been frequently referred to was established by the team led by Dr Cecilia L.W. Chan in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in the late 1990s, 9 who was also the first person to apply the BMS model in randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies and co-founded the BMS team in the Center of Behavioral Health (CBH) at HKU. Their definition of the BMS model was also called Eastern BMS (EBMS) model and Integrative BMS (I-BMS) model.3,10 Regardless of the different names, BMS model is defined as an approach to include BMS dimensions in treatments, which “assume(s) the dynamic balance of an interrelationship among BMS as fundamental to health, mental health, and the well-being of individuals”. 11 (p65) Three key concepts are presented in the definition of the BMS model. Firstly, the BMS model contains three dimensions: body, mind, and spirit. Secondly, those three dimensions are interrelated. Thirdly, the BMS model highlights the “holistic” concept reflected in both treatments and outcomes. Every key concept is indispensable in the BMS model and is imperative to be contained in program development and implementation.
In terms of what each dimension of the BMS model contains, the BMS team of CBH demonstrated that “the physical body includes sensation, energy, physical strength, body functioning, physiological responses, etc; the mind includes cognition, perception, mood, affection, problem-solving ability, memory, willpower, etc; the spirituality contains meaning, life goals, morality, values, commitment and fulfillment, relationship with higher being and cosmos”. 10 (p65) The interrelation among BMS is another key concept in the definition. The mind and the body are interconnected, 11 and the body, mind, emotions, cognition, values reflect diversified perspectives of a holistic self. 12 Nevertheless, how studies presented the interconnection of BMS in their model demonstration and study design was not clear, which aroused our interest to focus on this topic.
Although Lee et al 10 provided a recommended list of activities included for three BMS dimensions, researchers seem to keep divergent understandings towards what activities are qualified to include in the interventions that applied BMS model.13,14 With various perceptions of activities’ functions and categories, it is crucial to grasp how researchers could make sure their interventions contain a set of activities that covered all three dimensions. Meanwhile, offering the BMS training for interventionists is necessary, 15 but currently there is no guideline in consensus regarding the requirement to offer the BMS training for interventionists, not to mention the format and length of the training.
In order to demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the interventions that adopt the BMS model, it is necessary to include holistic outcomes, either general holistic ones or outcomes of all three BMS dimensions, and to examine their effectiveness. Currently, there is no systematic review about the BMS model at all, and there are only three existing outcome literature reviews about BMS.13,16,17 None of those focused on holistic intervention and outcomes: Lee et al 16 focused on mental health conditions, while Wang et al 13 and Liu et al 17 included studies with only one or two dimensions of outcomes. All three reviews included other interventions using single complementary health approaches in their search terms, such as yoga, tai qi and reiki, without any potent justification of the reason why they were qualified as holistic interventions, and why other complementary health approaches were not included.
The objective of this systematic review was to examine existing intervention studies on any population that applied the BMS model and evaluated the effectiveness of holistic well-being outcomes, which must include body, mind, and spiritual dimensions. We concentrated on the following five research questions: (1) How were BMS definitions presented, and were they influenced by cultural or philosophical values? (2) What activities were included in interventions that adopted the BMS model, and how were they related to BMS dimensions? (3) What were interventionists’ backgrounds, and was there BMS training for interventionists? (4) What kinds of holistic outcomes did interventions that applied the BMS model include? And (5) What were their effectiveness and qualities of studies?
It is immensely challenging to review any intervention which claims to adopt the BMS model without addressing the core concepts in the model, and our systematic review is the first to follow the BMS definition and focus on three core concepts of the model. Our systematic review would help researchers further understand the meaning of BMS and what should be included in BMS dimensions respectively. It would also help establish a guideline for included activities and the BMS training, strengthen interventionists’ competency, and promote high-quality RCTs in the BMS research arena.
Methods
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), which offers a comprehensive guideline for reporting systematic review and meta-analyses. 18
Search Strategy
On August 15, 2020, searches were performed in ProQuest, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane, Wanfang, CNKI, AIRITI, and CADAL. Studies identified in those nine electronic databases were published in English and Chinese from the start date of each database to August 15, 2020. The search terms were: 1) English: a) “body mind spirit” or “body mind soul” or mind body spirit” or “mind body soul” or “integrative body mind spirit” or BMS or I-BMS; b) RCT or experiment* or “randomized control trial”; Chinese: a) 身心灵 or 综合身心灵全人健康 or 身心灵健康平衡 or 身心灵全人健康; b) 随机对照 or实验or试验. The search term BMS and its equivalents were searched anywhere in the text; RCT and its equivalents were searched in title and abstract. The search strategies were: 1) English: (‘body mind spirit’ OR ‘body mind soul’ OR ‘mind body spirit’ OR ‘mind body soul’ OR ‘BMS’ OR ‘integrative body mind spirit’ OR ‘I-BMS’) AND (RCT OR ‘randomized control trial’ OR ‘experiment*’); 2) Chinese: (身心灵 OR 综合身心灵全人健康 OR 身心灵健康平衡 OR 身心灵全人健康) AND(随机对照 OR实验OR试验).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Selected studies must be eligible for the following inclusion criteria: (a) must be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or experimental studies; (b) must contain Body-Mind-Spirit (BMS) or equivalents in full-text; (c) the interventions must be holistic, with activities aiming to enhance all three perspectives of BMS, including body-, mind-, and spirituality-related ones; (d) the reported outcomes must include all three perspectives of well-being, including body-, mind-, and spirituality-related ones.
Exclusion criteria were: study protocols, other abbreviated BMS concepts rather than Body-Mind-Spirit, only mentioned BMS in reference list but not full-text, only mentioned BMS as other literature’ findings but did not relate with own studies, only mentioned BMS once without any further relations with context, secondary data analysis study.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
The following data was extracted from each study: (1) study characteristics, including location, study design, population demographics, sample size; (2) the BMS definition; (3) intervention characteristics, including intervention name, setting, format, embraced activities, duration of intervention, number of sessions and length of each session; (4) interventionist's background, including the discipline and the BMS training experience; (5) study outcomes, including data collection frequency, outcome measures, and results about effectiveness. We categorized social relationships into the spirituality dimension.
Study Quality
The “risk of bias” tool from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 19 was applied to evaluate the quality of the included studies through six dimensions: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and interventionists, blinding of outcome assessment, risks of incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. All the studies were coded as having high, low or unclear risk of bias on each of the six facets. A study was considered as high quality if it demonstrated low risk on four or more aspects, medium quality if it showed low risk on two or three aspects, and low quality if it only displayed low risk on one aspect. This evaluation process was conducted by two independent reviewers TL and XH, and disagreements were settled through meetings and discussions with senior researcher IC.
Results
Search Results
Figure 1 showed the PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process. A total of 10,185 studies were found from electronic searches, with 8719 articles in English and 1466 articles in Chinese (Figure 1). The literature search through gray literature from reference lists was also conducted and additional 114 articles were found, which expanded the total number to 10,299. Among those, 4287 articles were duplicated and removed, which left 6012 articles for screening title and abstract. Titles and abstracts of the identified papers were screened for eligibility by two reviewers, TL and XY, and 5799 articles were excluded according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of the 213 identified papers were independently screened for eligibility by four screeners, TL, XY, IC, and YS. As a result of the screening process, a total of 20 studies were found appropriate to be included in the collection.

Flowchart of the study selection process.
A total number of 2662 participants was included in the 20 studies. Table 1 presented the study characteristics and the BMS definition. Table 2A included intervention characteristics, and Table 2B contained interventionist background and the BMS training for interventionists. Table 3 demonstrated study outcomes and effectiveness, which were categorized as body-related, mind-related, spirituality-related, and holistic ones based on the authors’ descriptions and the definition in the introduction section. Table 4 presented the characteristics related to quality indicators. Citations for the individual articles were only provided in the text for the findings related to the review questions.
Study Characteristics and BMS Definition.
A. Intervention Characteristics.
2B Interventionist Background and BMS Training.
Data Collection Information, Measurement, Effectiveness for Studies Considering Group by Time Interaction and Were Effective in Holistic Outcomes.
Note.
T0: pre, T1: post, T2-T7: follow-ups.
BMSWBI (Body-Mind-Spirit Well-Being Inventory); CDLQI (Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index); C-KMS (Chinese version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale); CPS (Closeness to Parents Scale); C-STAI (Chinese State-Trait Anxiety Inventory); DAS (Death Anxiety Scale); DFAS (Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale); DFI (Dermatitis Family Impact); EDAS (Elderly Disability Assessment Scale); EORTC QLQ-30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-30); ERC (Emotion Regulation Checklist); FACT-G (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General); FACIT-Sp (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being); GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 7); HWS (Holistic Well-Being Scale); ISI (Insomnia Severity Index); PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire 9); PSS (Perceived Stress Scale); QOL-AD (Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s Disease); RSES (Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale); SCAS (Spence Children's Anxiety Scale); SCORAD (The Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index); WHOQOL-BREF (World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief Version).
Risk of Bias with Quality Indices.
Note. +: low risk; -: high risk; ?: unclear.
Study Characteristics
Among 20 included studies, nine were conducted in mainland China and were written in Chinese with English title and abstract. The rest studies were all written in English, among which six studies were conducted in Hong Kong, one in South Korea, two in India, and one in the United States; one study did not clarify the study site.
The population of the studies can be divided into four categories. The participants of 16 studies were patients with diagnosed health issues, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), cancer, depression, atopic dermatitis, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and Alzheimer's disease. Two studies aimed at caregivers, two directed on college students, and one focused on healthy older adults.
The sample size of the studies ranges from 20 to 330, while the dropout rate ranges from 8.75% to 59.87%. Overall, there were more female participants than male participants. The mean age of the participants ranges from 8.49 to 61.4 years old. Nine studies focused on middle-aged adults, and five focused on older adults aged 55 or above.
Among all control groups, five were waitlist controlled groups, ten received usual care, two were compared to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention, one was compared to psycho-educational support, and two studies did not specify. Ten studies collected data twice; five studies collected three times; the rest five collected four times or more.
BMS Definition
This section addressed the first research question. The BMS definition was analyzed according to the following perspectives: did studies (1) present BMS as a whole concept? (2) mention “holistic” in BMS definition? (3) mention “interrelation” among BMS? (4) relate the BMS concept to a certain culture?
Only two studies did not present BMS definition as a whole concept: Targ and Levine 20 did not define BMS at all; while Lee et al 21 did not define BMS as a whole, they defined body, mind, and spirit categories separately. Among those which contained whole BMS concepts, most studies referred their BMS definitions to Chan et al 9 or Lee et al, 10 but Zhou 22 did not specify the source of their BMS definition.
Thirteen studies3,22–33 mentioned “holistic” in their BMS definition, and Zhang et al (2016) illustrated that “man is an organic whole […]” in their BMS definition. Many3,22,25,27,29,31,32,34 pointed out that physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being, or body, mind, and spirit, are “interconnected”, “interdependent”, or “interacted”. Although Fung et al 24 mentioned “interconnectedness”, it referred to the interconnectedness of body, mind, and emotional expression, without including spiritual perspective. Xiu et al 35 depicted the “dynamic equilibrium” between body, mind, and spirit in their BMS definition. Seven studies3,22,25,27,29,31,32 included all three key concepts of the BMS model.
Less than half studies3,21,23,24,29,32–34 exhibited the categorized description of body, mind, and spirit separately. Lau et al 25 only demonstrated body and spirit, but not mind. In terms of social or interpersonal relationship, Chan et al 3 and Chan et al 23 included it in the mind category, while Lee et al 21 put it in the spirit category. Xue and Xue 33 listed social well-being as a separate category from the spiritual one.
While eight studies did not mention cultural factors in BMS definitions, more than half studies22,28–37 mentioned that the BMS concept was extracted from Eastern philosophies or cultures, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Among those, Liu et al 36 also mentioned that BMS integrated the concept from Western philosophies without specific examples. Rentala et al 27 depicted that BMS incorporates traditional cultural and philosophical values but did not provide specific categories.
Intervention Characteristics
Most studies included BMS in their intervention names. Ten studies were conducted in institutions including hospitals and colleges, three in community settings, and seven did not mention settings. All studies employed group and in-person formats in their interventions. Less than half adopted both group and individual formats, and Zhang et al 34 used virtual format besides group and in-person ones. The duration of the studies ranged from 4 weeks to 12 weeks. The number of the sessions ranged from 4 to 24, and the duration of the sessions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.
Intervention Activities
This section addressed the second research question. All studies mentioned activities adopted in their interventions, but related activities to BMS concepts differently: only 25 percent of studies placed the activities into body, mind, and spirit categories; around half studies explained some activities in detail but did not categorize them, and the rest only mentioned the names of the activities.
Only 25 percent of studies specified the body, mind, and spirit categories for activities.21,24,33,34,36 The most frequently adopted physical activities were self-care methods,21,36 diet,21,33,36 massage,24,36 and breathing exercises.24,34 Experience sharing was the most commonly applied activity within the mind category.24,34 The mind category also included activities like yoga, meditation, anger management, stress reduction techniques, transformation of thoughts, appreciation journal, 21 drawing impressions of emotions and self, sharing strategies of releasing emotions, 36 targeted psychological guidance, music appreciation, and self-relaxation training. 34 Meanwhile, the most popular spiritual activities were altruism practices,21,36 forgiveness exercises,21,36 family relationship reshaping,33,34 and social networking activities.33,34
In terms of activity goals and details, eleven articles stated the goals for some of the activities but did not specifically set up categories.22,23,25,27–32,35,37 Among them, eight studies described the sessions in detail as to their themes, objectives, and core contents; one study stated the session objectives and the activities separately, but did not make adequate connections between them; two studies only specified activities and their respective goals without mentioning the session structure or themes. Among the eight studies that mentioned session themes, all of them held a session with the theme of growth through pain and personal transformation; six studies held a session with the theme of self-love and letting go; another six studies carried out a session on emotional management. Four studies3,20,26,38 listed the activities in their programs, but none stated the goals of the activities or put them into categories.
Interventionist Background
This section addressed the third research question. The interventionists’ professional and educational backgrounds included social workers, counselors, nurses, physicians, physiotherapists, nutritionists, personal care aides in the hospital, qi-gong master, and individuals with degrees in either social work or psychology.
Regarding interventionist background, interventions were conducted by social workers;20,21,24,30,33 counselors,24,26,28,29,32 including psychological counselors,26,28,29 mental health instructors, 28 and psychotherapists; 32 physicians;26,29,32,34 and nurses26,29,32–34 In addition, Xue and Xue 33 invited physiotherapists, nutritionists, and personal care aides working in the hospital to be interventionists. Besides, a qi-gong master led the intervention designed by Lu et al 26 Two interventions were facilitated by individuals with degrees in either social work or psychology.25,35 The authors of studies also led interventions,3,23,27,36,37 but their disciplines were not stated in the article. Moreover, three studies22,31,38 did not specify the background of the interventionists.
BMS Training for Interventionists
This section also addressed the third research question. Only three studies24,25,33 explained the training for interventionists in detail. The training lasted ten hours 33 to three days.24,25 Interventionists were taught about the theory of BMS, the techniques of the intervention,24,25,33 and the dedication and team spirit required by the intervention. 33 Many studies3,21,27,30,34,35,37 mentioned that interventionists attended training but did not specify its content. The rest20,22,23,26,28,29,31,32,36,38 did not point out whether or not there was any training for interventionists.
Outcomes and Effectiveness
This section addressed the fourth and fifth research questions. Outcomes were categorized into four categories: body-, mind-, spirituality-related, and general holistic outcomes. Body-, mind-, and spirituality-related ones were specified according to the BMS definition in the introduction. General holistic outcomes include the quality of life or overall well-being, containing all three aspects of body, mind, and spirit. Studies utilized “post”, “follow-up”, “maintenance effect”, and “overall effect” to demonstrate the time period of effectiveness. Due to their different understandings of the meaning of those terms, the time periods presented were not unified. To make it clear and unified, we used post, follow-up (from baseline to the last data collection time point), and maintenance effect (from post-intervention to the last data collection time point) to demonstrate the between-group effectiveness in the following subsections. In this review, we only presented statistically significant results.
Body-related Outcomes
All studies with body-related outcomes were analyzed. The five most frequently reported body-related outcomes are effects on the disease, general functional conditions, specific functional conditions, general physical conditions, and specific physical conditions. 66.67% of the studies reporting general functional conditions showed statistically significant effectiveness; 60% reporting specific physical conditions were significantly effective; half reporting specific functional conditions and general physical conditions demonstrated statistically significant effectiveness; 37.5% reporting effects on the disease were significantly effective.
Less than half studies3,23,25,28,30,31,33,34 reported effects on the disease, including the changes in physical symptoms, severity of Atopic Dermatitis, lung function, organ function, and pregnancy. Among them, Xie et al 30 reported post effectiveness in severity of Atopic Dermatitis (F = 4.827, p < .05, η2 = .042); Zhang et al (2016) reported a post effect on lung function (t = 2. 077, p = 0. 046).
For general functional conditions, six studies20,22,23,25,34,37 reported daily functioning, functional well-being, functional impairment, physical function, and role-physical function. Among them, Chan et al 23 reported follow-up effect (F = 6.01, p < .05, η2 = .02) in daily functioning, and Rentala et al 37 reported follow-up effect (F(4460) = 23.35, p < .001, η2 = 0.169) in functional impairment. Meanwhile, Zhou 22 and Zhang et al 34 both reported post-intervention effectiveness in physical function (t = 2.75, p < .05; t = 6.122, p < .001), and Zhou 22 further reported post-intervention effectiveness in role-physical function (t = 2.45, p < .05).
In terms of more specific functional conditions, six studies24,25,28,33,35,38 reported sleep quality, activity, general vitality, appetite and self-care. Three studies reported significant results: Fung et al 24 reported post-intervention effect (F(2, 178) = 3.39, p = .036, η2p = .037) in general vitality; Sang 38 reported post-intervention effect in appetite and sleep (t = -2.368, p = .029); Xue and Xue 33 reported post-intervention effect in both activity (t = 4.343, p = .000) and self-care (t = 2.859, p = .006).
For physical conditions, six studies20,25,29,31,32,35 reported physical well-being, physical health, physical quality of life (QOL) and health problem. Three29,31,32 reported significant results with post-intervention effectiveness in general physical condition (t = -5.341, p = .000; t = 6.39, p < .01; t = -5.341, p < .001, respectively).
Regarding more specific physical conditions, five studies23,25,26,28,38 reported more specific physical conditions, including physical distress, physical pain, energy and physical strength, destruction, bodily irritability and somatization, and three reported effectiveness: Chan et al 23 reported the maintenance effect (F = 6.55, p < .01, η2 = .03) and follow-up effect (F = 12.95, p < .01, η2 = .05) on physical distress as significant, and Lu et al 26 and Sang 38 reported post effectiveness in somatization (p < .05; t = -2.306, p = .033). Additionally, two studies reported knowledge of physical diseases, and both reported post effectiveness (Sun and Cui 28 : t = 6.795, p < .05; Zhang et al 34 : t = 4.385, p < .001).
Mind-related Outcomes
All studies reported mind-related outcomes, which were synthesized into four categories: general mental and emotional health, depression, anxiety, and other subcategories of mental and emotional conditions.
For general mental and emotional health, half studies20,22,25,26,29–34 reported emotion, emotional well-being/function/regulation/vulnerability, mental function, psychological health/function/QOL, in which 70 percent22,26,29,31–34 showed post effectiveness. Although Xie et al 30 showed nonsignificant post effectiveness, its follow-up effectiveness was significant (F = 6.588, p < .05, η2 = 0.056). Note that Lau et al 25 presented the comparison group of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) more effective than IBMS in emotional vulnerability (γ = -.13, p < .05).
In terms of subcategories of mental and emotional health, 12 articles20–22,24–27,31,35–38 reported depression. Among them, six studies22,24–26,31,38 showed post effectiveness in depression. Three studies reported follow-up effectiveness: Rentala et al 37 (F(4460) = 29.87, p < .001, η2 = 0.206), Rentala et al 27 (F(6,1212) = 156.70, p < .01, η2G = 0.13), and Xiong et al 31 (t = 7.22, p < .05).
For anxiety outcomes, twelve studies3,20,22–27,30,35,36,38 reported anxiety and its subcategories including state anxiety, trait anxiety, death anxiety, and phobia anxiety. Half20,22,24–27,30,35,36,38 reported the overall anxiety, in which four22,26,36,38 reported post effectiveness and two27,30 reported follow-up effectiveness in overall anxiety. Although Xie et al 30 showed nonsignificant results in post-intervention, its follow-up effectiveness was statistically significant (F = 6.027, p < .05, η2 = 0.051). Among subgroups of anxiety, Chan et al 3 and Chan et al 23 showed post and follow-up effectiveness in state anxiety; Chan et al 23 showed effectiveness in trait anxiety (post: F = 4.09, p < .05, η2 = .02; follow-up: F = 4.90, p < .05, η2 = .02). Sang 38 showed post effectiveness in phobia anxiety (t = -2.725, p = .014).
Eleven studies contained one or more other subcategories of mental and emotional conditions except for depression and anxiety: stress,24,27,35 affection,21,23 coping,26,38 self-esteem,30,35 self-efficacy, 22 lability/negativity, 30 anger, mental confusion, and mood, 20 hostility, paranoid ideation, psychoticism, automatic thoughts, and loneliness, 38 and dysfunctional attitudes of emotional distress, including achievement, self-control, and dependency. 25 Among them, less than half22,24,26,30,38 showed post effectiveness in one or more outcomes. Although showing post nonsignificant effectiveness, Chan et al 23 exhibited both maintenance and follow-up effectiveness in negative affection (F = 3.79, p < .05, η2 = .02; F = 6.47, p < .01, η2 = .03 respectively). Rentala et al 27 and Xie et al 30 also presented follow-up effectiveness on general stress (F(6,1236) = 166.10, p < .01, η2G = 0.16) and liability/negativity (F = 4.975, p < .05, η2 = 0.043) respectively.
Spirituality-related Outcomes
Only Liu et al, 36 Rentala et al, 37 and Rentala et al 27 did not contain a spirituality-related outcome (but they included a general holistic outcome to be qualified in our review), and the rest of the articles all reported spirituality-related outcomes. The spirituality-related outcomes were summarized into four categories: general spiritual well-being, specific subgroups in spiritual well-being, social well-being, and family-related outcomes.
For general spiritual well being or spiritual self-care, four studies20,24,25,33 reported the outcome in which three showed post effectiveness: Lau et al 25 (γ = -.20, p < .05), Targ and Levine 20 (t = -2.98, p = .003), and Xue and Xue 33 (t = 4.303, p = .000).
Reported specific subgroups in spiritual well-being included spiritual disorientation,23–25 posttraumatic growth,29,32 faith and belief,20,33 meaning and peace,20,33 nonattachment and mindful awareness,24,25 spiritual practice, spiritual growth, embracing life, and fatalism, 20 tranquility and resilience, 23 afflictive sensation and ideation. 24 Except for Lau et al, 25 other six studies all exhibited post effectiveness in one or more outcomes of specific subgroups in spiritual well-being. Only Chan et al 23 showed maintenance and follow-up effectiveness: it presented maintenance effectiveness in tranquility (F = 4.56, p < .05, η2 = .02), and follow-up effectiveness in tranquility (F = 24.86, p < .01, η2 = .09), disorientation (F = 7.18, p < .01, η2 = .03), and resilience (F = 5.33, p < .05, η2 = .02). Lee et al 21 claimed to have significant improvement in spiritual health by improving peace of mind, life satisfaction, and optimism about the future without data support.
Social well-being and its related terms consisted of social well-being, 20 social relationship, 29 social function,22,34 social condition, 25 social QOL,31,32 social support, 28 interpersonal sensitivity,26,38 social avoidance and social distress, 38 and social phobia. 30 Among them, five studies showed post effectiveness: Tang et al 29 (t = -6.586, p = .000), Xiong et al 31 (t = 4.14, p < .01), Xiong and Mao 32 (t = -6.586, p < .001), Zhang et al 34 (t = 6.747, p < .001), Sang 38 (interpersonal sensitivity: t = -3.822, p = .001; total social avoidance and social distress: t = -4.927, p = .000). Although Xie et al 30 exhibited nonsignificant post effectiveness, it was the only study showing follow-up effectiveness (F = 5.692, p < .05, η2 = 0.049).
For family related outcomes, seven studies reported family function, 24 family life, 33 lack of family support, 35 understanding of family and care, 28 childbearing importance,3,23 marital satisfaction, 23 and quality of parent-child relationships. 30 Among them, four studies exhibited post effectiveness: Chan et al 23 (childbearing importance: F = 10.83, p < .01, η2 = .04); Chan et al 3 (F = 4.810, p < .01); Sun and Cui 28 (t = 2.783, p < .05); Xue and Xue 33 (t = 0.47, p = .002). Only Chan et al 23 showed maintenance and follow-up effectiveness on its family-related outcomes: they exhibited maintenance and follow-up effectiveness in marital satisfaction, though not post-intervention (maintenance: F = 4.42, p < .05, η2 = .02; follow-up: F = 4.94, p < .05, η2 = .02). Chan et al 23 also presented follow-up effectiveness in childbearing importance (F = 20.53, p < .01, η2 = .08).
Holistic Outcomes
A study with holistic outcomes means either it contains a general holistic outcome or includes at least one outcome for each of the body-, mind-, and spirituality-related outcomes. Table 3 included studies that considered group by time interaction in their between-group analysis, and were effective in either a general holistic outcome25,27,33,37 or in all three dimensions.23–25,30,33 The complete table of the data collection and outcome information for all included articles is available upon request.
Among all 20 articles, half20,22,25,27,30,33–37 reported general holistic outcomes, including holistic well-being with Body-Mind-Spirit Well-Being Inventory (BMSWBI)27,36,37 and overall QOL.20,22,25,30,33–35,37 Xue & Xue 33 showed post significance (QOL-AD: t = 3.787, p = .000; EDAS Total: t = 0.339, p = .003), and Lau et al, 25 Rentala et al, 37 Rentala et al 27 reported follow-up effectiveness (γ = -.18, p < .01; BMSWBI: F(4460) = 48.15, p < .001, η2 = 0.295; WHOQOL-BREF: F(4460) = 49.18, p < .001, η2 = 0.300; F(6,1200) = 156.40, p < .01, η2G = 0.13).
For studies that respectively reported body, mind, and spirituality-related outcomes, only five studies23–25,30,33 utilized group by time interaction in their between-group analysis and showed effectiveness in all three dimensions, either post, maintenance, or follow-up ones.
Risk of Bias
Addressing the fifth research question, Table 4 reported the quality of the studies which varied widely. Three studies were rated as high-quality, 13 were rated as medium-quality, and four were rated as low-quality. In terms of each quality assessment criteria, thirteen (65%) studies report adequate random sequence generation; two (10%) reported adequate allocation concealment; three (15%) studies reported appropriate blinding of participants and interventionists; no study reported proper blinding of outcome assessment; 14 (70%) studies reported complete outcome data; 18 (90%) studies covered all results that the researchers intended to explore.
Discussion
This paper was set out to answer five research questions: (1) How were BMS definitions presented, and were they influenced by cultural and philosophical values? (2) What activities were included in interventions that adopted the BMS model, and how were they related to BMS dimensions? (3) What were interventionists’ backgrounds, and was there BMS training for interventionists? (4) What kinds of holistic outcomes did interventions that applied the BMS model include? And (5) What were their effectiveness and qualities of studies?
Although most studies referred to the BMS definition by the BMS team of CBH at HKU 10 and many3,22–33 brought up “holistic” in their definitions, only fewer than half of studies3,24,25,27,31,32,34 mentioned “interrelation” or its equivalents in their definitions. Without taking interrelation into consideration, researchers may not design an intervention that thoroughly aligns with the BMS model, which may also curtail their justification on how the separate effectiveness of each dimension contributes to the holistic effectiveness. Additionally, social relationships were not clearly defined into one of the three dimensions of the BMS models, that even the same person who defined the BMS model put the same concept to the different dimensions, either in mind or spirituality.3,12 An Australian researcher in spirituality illustrated that spirituality contains not only religious practices, but more broadly, the relationship with other people. 39 This makes social relationships more reasonable to include in the spirituality dimension. There were researchers spontaneously perceiving the BMS model tantamount to other concepts such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)16,20 without providing a clear rationale. Without an authentic BMS definition in consensus, it is certainly challenging to understand how the BMS model differentiates from and relates to other concepts.
Many of the studies included in our review22,27,28,30–32,34–36 mentioned that the BMS concept was extracted from cultural and philosophical values, in which almost all studies showed that it was from Eastern culture or philosophy. It seemed reasonable since those studies employed the BMS model by the CBH team at HKU 10 : most philosophical values cited were Eastern ones such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.30,35,36 Nevertheless, holism, as a key concept in the BMS model, has been illustrated in diversified cultures and philosophies all over the world.4,40 In this case, the BMS model may not be restricted to the Eastern cultures but can be adjusted to a broader range of cultural contexts.
Although Lee et al 10 provided a recommended structure for included activities, not all studies adequately followed this suggested structure, and their included activities’ functions were not very clear.20,22,30 The recommended structure of included activities did not explicitly illustrate the interrelation among those included activities. In order to establish an intervention aiming to improve holistic well-being, it is suggested to include activities that could independently improve all three dimensions or a set of activities that could jointly affect all three aspects. However, most studies did not categorize the activities according to their functions, except for Fung et al, 24 Lee et al, 21 and Zhang et al 34 The lack of connection could also exert difficulties for future researchers to design a curriculum for their interventions. The function of key activities is recommended to state in the introduction or method section so that it is justifiable to include them in the intervention.
The training process was frequently missed out from the studies.20,22,23,26,28,29,31,32,36,38 The interventionists’ disciplines, along with their corresponding training backgrounds, were diversified. Despite the professional training specific to disease conditions, those interventionists may not be assumed to have fully comprehended BMS knowledge and qualify for conducting the intervention without BMS training with its three key concepts. In many of the included studies that had trainings for interventionists, the training details were not clear enough.27,30,35,37 Without proper BMS training, the quality of those interventions could be undermined because of the interventionists’ lack of understanding of the key concepts in the BMS model. 15 It is recommended to make sure that at least one of the researchers, intervention designers, or interventionists contains a sufficient understanding of the BMS model.
Among studies that respectively reported body, mind, and spirituality-related outcomes, some only reported effectiveness in two or fewer aspects of body, mind, and spirit.3,26 In those cases, it was questionable as to whether those interventions could be considered holistically effective. It is recommended to include a general holistic outcome such as holistic well-being to avoid confusion and to better comply with the key construct.
Another issue regarding the effectiveness is that it was hard to know whether the interventions that adhered to the BMS model were effective in the long run. Since more than half of the included studies did not include follow-up assessments,20–22,26,28,29,32–36 it was difficult to perceive whether the effect of those interventions could sustain. Instead of merely improving certain diseases, the intervention is expected to adjust the balance among body, mind, and spirit and enhance individuals’ long-term overall well-being. 10 Therefore, follow-up information regarding participants’ conditions should be collected in order to understand whether the effectiveness of those interventions could maintain in the long term. 41
In order to conduct more systematic reviews on the BMS models and applied interventions in the future, researchers need to carry out more rigorous RCT studies to ensure high quality. For example, during the research design process, researchers should pay attention to allocation concealment, the blinding process, as well as the design of comparison groups, since these aspects are the most frequently missed out in the existing studies, which would affect the study results on effectiveness. 42
Implications
It is recommended to establish a clear definition for the BMS model, and to provide guidelines for researchers to fully understand how to apply the model in their studies, including the design of interventions, and selection of activities and outcomes that cover the model's key concepts. Furthermore, some studies did not name their interventions as BMS in the title.27,33 Researchers are suggested not only searching BMS as intervention name in title, but searching it in full text, in order to obtain a full list of the qualified interventions. Also, to present the overall effectiveness of interventions that applied the BMS model, researchers are highly recommended to examine the effectiveness of holistic outcomes. Lastly, future researchers are recommended to establish a BMS training requirement because of the professional skills this holistic intervention demands. Furthermore, researchers are suggested setting up a practical guideline on the BMS training format and content, which helps them to establish a standard training process, ensuring their solid understanding of the BMS model before actually applying it.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Dr Mandong Liu for her efforts in proofreading this paper.
Author Contributions
TL and IC design the study. TL and XH performed the literature search. TL, XH, and IC conducted the data extraction. TL and XH did data analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. IC reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
Ethical Approval
This study did not warrant institutional review board review as no human subjects were involved.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
