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

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

Consultation and treatment behaviour of infertile couples in China: a population-based study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The prevalence of infertility in couples actively trying to conceive is 25%. What is the consultation-seeking behaviour, diagnosis and related treatment in infertile couples across China? DESIGN: Large cross-sectional population-based study in 2010-2011, in which 25,270 couples from eight provinces/municipalities in China were approached by a multistage stratified cluster sampling strategy. RESULTS: Among the 2680 couples reporting infertility, 1246 infertile couples consulted a fertility doctor. Age of the couple, man's body mass index and women's educational level were found to be associated with consultation behaviour. After the fertility work-up, diagnoses were tubal infertility (n = 353, 28.3%), unexplained infertility (n = 311, 25.0%), male infertility (n = 234, 18.8%), ovulatory disorder (n = 194, 15.6%) and endometriosis (n = 34, 2.7%), while 8.6% (n = 107) were not classified. Most couples received non-assisted reproductive technology (ART) fertility treatment (n = 906, 89.3%), with a proportion using traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) (n = 298, 29.4%). Intrauterine insemination (n = 62, 6.1%) and IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (n = 57, 5.6%) were less frequent. Medical treatment and outcomes among five subtypes of infertility were also reported: about 30% of couples with unexplained infertility (n = 94, 30.3%) or male infertility (n = 67, 29.0%) used TCM to treat infertility. Apart from patients with endometriosis, of whom 20.6% (n = 7) received ART, patients with other infertility subtypes rarely received ART. For subsequent fertility outcome, 94% of them did not achieve a pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of infertility in China is high, but the uptake of treatment is relatively low.