| Literature DB >> 32962749 |
Gladys E Ibañez1, Kristopher Fennie2, Linda Larkey3, Nan Hu4,5, Angel B Algarin6,7, Chelsea Valdivia4, Helen Lavretsky8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Almost half of people living with HIV (PLWH) in the USA are over 50 years of age; this is expected to increase to 70% by 2020. Yet, few interventions exist for older PLWH that address psychological and physical symptoms combined, both prevalent in this population. There is a need to find innovative and accessible interventions that can help older PLWH to manage their symptoms. Mind-body interventions, like tai chi/qigong (TCQ), improve both physical and psychological health. TCQ is a series of slow, low-impact meditative movements that integrates breathwork, meditation, and stances.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; Intervention; Mind-body; Older adults; Qigong; Tai chi
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32962749 PMCID: PMC7506206 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04728-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Fig. 1Theoretical framework adapted from Spirduso et al. (2008) exercise-cognition model
Main components of the TCQ intervention
| Week 1 | The three intentful corrections |
| Aligning, opening, and concluding tai chi easy sequences | |
| Weeks 1–4 | Vitality method—flowing motion |
| Vitality method—right and left bending of spine | |
| Vitality method—front and back bending of spine | |
| Vitality method—reaching upward, stretching outward | |
| Weeks 5–12 | Spontaneous qigong |
| Channeling energy | |
| Tai chi movement 1—harmonizing yin and yang | |
| Tai chi movement 2—brush knee send qi (chi) | |
| Tai chi movement 3—cutting the path to clarity | |
| Tai chi movement 4—watching clouds pass | |
| Tai chi movement 5—gathering heaven and earth |
Main components of the SQG intervention
| Weeks 1–12 | Warm-up and cool down | Stretching neck |
| Rolling shoulders | ||
| Shrugging shoulders | ||
| Body twist | ||
| Main movements | Hug your head | |
| Lunges | ||
| Side stretch | ||
| Reaching for the stars | ||
| Dance step | ||
| Swinging arms | ||
| Hanging circles | ||
| Overhead stretch | ||
| Floor stretch | ||
| Alternative movements | Marching | |
| The swim | ||
| Dusting the room | ||
| The swing | ||
| Reverse swim |
Descriptive characteristics of the TCQ intervention and control conditions
| TCQ intervention | SQG control | Standard of care group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention features | • Low-impact physical activity • Focus on breath • Meditative state • Incidental social support | • Low-impact physical activity with same/similar movements as TCQ intervention • Incidental social support | • No exercise or activity program |
| Dose/frequency | • 12 weeks, 1/week 60 min class • 2× per week in first 2 weeks • Approx. 2 ½ h home practice/week | • 12 weeks, 1/week 60 min class • 2× per week in first 2 weeks • Approx. 2 ½ h home practice/week | • n/a |
| Controls for | • Unique focus; breath and meditative state | • Low-impact physical activity | • n/a |
Fig. 2Study design flowchart
All measures and time of administration
| Quantitative measures | No. of items/psychometrics | Screen | BL | Weekly/during intervention | 2-week FU | 3-month FU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, HIV status (self-report/lab test) | X | |||||
| Any mind-body practice in past 12 months | X | |||||
| GAIN cognitive impairment | 6 items/α = .87 | X | ||||
| Can stand up for 10 min | X | |||||
| X | ||||||
| HIV-related stigma | 6 items/α = .75 | |||||
| Social support scale | 12 items/α = .94 | |||||
| Drug use (DAST) | 20 items/α = .92 | |||||
| Alcohol (AUDIT) | 10 items/α = .83 | |||||
| CES-D scale | X | X | X | |||
| Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) | 21 items/α = .86 | |||||
| The Revised Sign and Symptom Checklist for HIV | 45 items/α = .71–.91 | X | X | X | ||
| HIV-related Fatigue Scale (MAF) | 16 items/α = 0.88 | X | X | X | ||
| 5-item medication adherence questions MMAS-8 | 8 items/α = .75 | X | X | X | ||
| Viral load (lab results) | X | X | X | |||
| X | X | X | ||||
| X | X | |||||
| X | ||||||
| Meditative Movement Inventory | 9 items/α = .86–.90 | X | X | |||
| Intervention Fidelity Checklist (for senior trainer) | X | |||||
Acceptability and feasibility definitions and benchmarks
| Definition | Benchmark | |
|---|---|---|
| Burden | Discontinuation/non-attendance | < 20% of TCQ and the SQG condition will drop out at 3 months follow-up. |
| Ethical consequences | Any side effects with intervention | < 10% of participants will report any physical soreness or difficulties in doing TCQ. |
| Experience | Participant’s experience and satisfaction | > 80% TCQ participants will perceive intervention positively. |
| > 80% TCQ participants will rate it very satisfactory or satisfactory. | ||
| Affective attitudes | Participants attitudes toward the intervention | > 80% of participant in TCQ condition will report positive attitudes about it (very good/good). |
| Opportunity costs | Adherence and participation | Participants in both TCQ and SQG conditions will attend at least 75% of all sessions. |
| Participants in the TCQ condition will adhere to home practice at least 75% of the time expected (i.e., 112 out of 150 min/week). | ||
| Intentions | Willingness to participate | > 80% TCQ participants would be willing to participate again. |
| > 80% TCQ participants intend to continue qigong practice. | ||
| Demand | Likelihood that intervention will be used | > 80% of TCQ participants will report any TCQ practice in the past week. |
| Implementation | Can the intervention be implemented in a setting, often a real-world setting | Trainers will execute intervention > 80% of the time. |
| > 80% of trainers will rate resources needed to implement as very good/good. | ||
| > 80% of trainers will report positive effects on population. | ||
| Practicality | Extent to which an intervention can be delivered given the limited resources | > 80% of trainers will report participant’s ability to do the intervention as very good/good. |
| Integration | Extent to which the intervention fits the system | > 80% of trainers will perceive intervention fits the clinic infrastructure as very good/good. |
| > 80% of trainers perceive the sustainability of the intervention as very good/good. | ||