Effects of a group-based lifestyle medicine for depression: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

Given the growing evidence that a range of lifestyle factors are involved in the etiology of depression, a 'lifestyle medicine' approach can be potentially safe and cost-effective to prevent or treat depression. To examine the effects and acceptability of a group-based, integrative lifestyle medicine intervention as a standalone treatment for managing depressive symptoms, a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in a Chinese adult population in 2018. Participants (n = 31) with PHQ-9 score above the cut-off of ≥ 10, which was indicative of moderate to severe depression, were recruited from the general community in Hong Kong and randomly assigned to lifestyle medicine group (LM group) or care-as-usual group (CAU group) in a ratio of 1:1. Participants in the LM group received 2-hour group sessions once per week for six consecutive weeks, which covered diet, exercise, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and sleep management. Linear mixed-effects model analyses showed that the LM group had a significant reduction in PHQ-9 scores compared to the CAU group at immediate posttreatment and 12-week posttreatment follow-up (d = 0.69 and 0.73, respectively). Moreover, there were significantly greater improvements in anxiety, stress, and insomnia symptoms (measured by DASS-21 and ISI) at all time points in the LM group (d = 0.42-1.16). The results suggests that our 6-week group-based, integrative lifestyle intervention program is effective in lowering depressive, anxiety, stress, and insomnia symptoms in the Chinese population. Further studies in clinical populations with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are warranted.

Current challenges in appraising complementary medicine evidence.

Increased research in the area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is urgently required, in addition to a balanced appraisal and communication of the state of evidence in the field. Current challenges for clinicians and the public in accepting purported CAM evidence concern potential selective publication of results, marked differences in product quality and standardisation, and some companies making unsubstantiated claims. To improve confidence in the industry, companies must publish all results and only make substantiated claims. In addition, providing intellectual property protection to CAM companies may encourage greater investment in research; however, more accountability of study results is critical.