1. Introduction
Against the backdrop of COVID-19, mental health needs have increased while access to affordable mental health interventions has been reduced [1,2]. In view of this, the United Nations has recognised the need for supplementary interventions that can support existing mental health care [3]. Religious and spiritual (R/S) practices, such as chanting, breathwork and yoga offer cost-effective and accessible supplementary mental health interventions [4]. There is substantial evidence for the mental health benefits of these practices, with evidence that they may be preferred by some patients over mainstream treatment, possibly due to the stigma attached to mental illness and shame associated with accessing conventional mental health services [5,6]. Side effects of medications [7] and lack of response to conventional treatments [8] are other reasons cited for why R/S practices may be a preferred treatment approach. Despite this potential, no studies were located that investigated the use of R/S practices as mental health interventions in clinical settings. This highlights the need to investigate the viability of integrating these practices in clinical mental health care.
A limited number of studies have investigated the inclusion of R/S practices in counselling and “talking therapy” [[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]]. The focus of these studies was either addressing mental health through counselling and/or cognitive restructuring strategies based on practices related to R/S philosophies [9,10] or by supplementing counselling with R/S meditation and healing practices [[11], [12], [13]]. So, while the integration of some R/S practices into mental health interventions has been explored, to our knowledge, no study has focussed on the feasibility of using R/S practices as standalone interventions in mental health settings. Indeed, at present, it is unclear to what extent R/S practices are considered viable for use in these settings.
In this survey, we focus on a specific subset of R/S practices that have distinct sensory (related to senses) and motor (body movements such as vocalisation/manipulation of breathing/body postures and movements) components and can be termed as sensorimotor R/S practices [14]. As body-oriented practices, sensorimotor R/S practices such as yoga, pranayama and chanting do not pose high cognitive and linguistic demands. This differs from many of the current conventional interventions in mental health settings which are conversational and involve cognitive-based strategies [15]. Cognitively mediated interventions, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, may be challenging for people with limited cognitive or linguistic skills (including those with severe mental illness, trauma histories, and people from diverse sociocultural backgrounds) [5]. Body-oriented interventions (such as sensorimotor R/S practice) may be of value for these populations [5]. Furthermore, psychological stress affects cognitive flexibility and the ability to retrieve information from long-term memory [16] supporting the need for interventions that do not rely on cognition.
In Australia, sensorimotor R/S practices, such as yoga, have been increasingly used and accepted by the general population for their mental health benefits [17,18] which suggests the possible use of these practices as potential therapeutic interventions in mental health clinical settings. In a recent study, chanting was assessed as a potentially useful online intervention and was shown to have mental health benefits such as reduced stress and increased positive affect [19]. In another study, veterans reported reductions in depression and anxiety with a yoga intervention provided through telehealth [20]. Mental health benefits of these practices for people with severe mental illness have also been identified, including yoga in schizophrenia [21] and major depressive disorder [22], and pranayama [23] and chanting [24] for post-traumatic stress disorder. Authors of other studies have recommended the use of breathwork [25,26] and yoga [27,28] as either standalone or adjunctive mental health interventions.
A review of the literature revealed three sensorimotor R/S practices with substantial evidence of effectiveness in mental health: pranayama [[29], [30], [31]]; chanting [19,29,32,33]; and yoga [[34], [35], [36]]. In our survey, we used the following definitions of R/S practices: Pranayama, sometimes referred to as breathwork, is an ancient yogic breathing practice to promote mind-body connection; Chanting is an ancient religious/spiritual practice that involves repetition of a prayer or spiritually meaningful word or phrase; and, Yoga refers to the ancient spiritual practice of adopting body poses and postures to achieve mind and body connection which has physical and mental health benefits.
Despite evidence for the mental health benefits of sensorimotor R/S practices and their apparent acceptance among Australians [37], little is known about the viability of using these practices as mental health interventions in clinical settings. In a qualitative study conducted in Australia, mental health professionals (MHPs) identified the value of alternative therapies that included some sensorimotor R/S practices; however, they felt confused about integrating these interventions in their mental health practice and acknowledged the need for a framework and clear guidelines [38], this study however was not focussed on R/S practices. To transfer available empirical evidence to clinical mental health care, there is a need to understand more about the factors that might impact the use of R/S practices. Practical considerations, such as whether MHPs are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills, their personal experience with R/S practices, whether clinical settings have adequate resources for these practices, and the need for guidelines, have not been explored in the extant literature.
The aim of the present study was to understand MHPs' (e.g., psychiatrists, mental health occupational therapists, psychologists, nurses) perceptions of the viability of using three sensorimotor R/S practices (chanting, pranayama, and yoga) as therapeutic interventions in clinical mental health settings. There were six objectives: 1) To examine the knowledge and confidence of MHPs regarding using these R/S practices in mental health clinical settings, including differences between professions; 2) To understand MHPs' perceptions regarding the feasibility of these R/S practices in clinical mental health care, and any differences between professions and health sectors; 3) To investigate any differences in knowledge, confidence, and feasibility across the three R/S practices; 4) To understand the training and resource needs of MHPs in relation to these practices; 5) To examine MHPs' personal experience of R/S practice; 6) To investigate the view of MHPs regarding the need for a guideline that may inform them about use of R/S practices in mental health settings. The study was restricted to Australian MHPs with a view to using the findings to support future integration of sensorimotor R/S practices in mental health clinical settings in Australia.
2. Method
A survey was conducted with MHPs in Australia. After receiving ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Central Queensland University, Australia (approval number 0000022594), the survey was conducted online using the software Qualtrics.
2.1. Survey design
Survey questions were designed to gather data specific to:
2.1.1. Demographics and professional characteristics
Demographic details and information about the professional background and current practice setting (mental health experience, profession, current work setting, type of health sector, and areas of mental health) of the participants were collected. All questions were forced choice with space provided for free text should responses not fit within the choices given.
2.1.2. Knowledge, confidence, and feasibility (KCF)
This part of the survey employed a modified version of the Knowledge, Confidence and Attitudes (KCA) scale [39] to ascertain participants' perceptions of their knowledge, confidence, and the feasibility of using chanting, pranayama, and yoga in clinical mental health practice. The scale consisted of 13 questions, all scored using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A separate scale was completed for each R/S practice, totalling 39 questions overall (refer to Appendix for KCF scale). All questions regarding knowledge (five questions), confidence (three questions), and feasibility (five questions) were identical for the three R/S practices. Sample questions were: (1) Knowledge – I am familiar with evidence regarding the efficacy of the R/S practice in mental health; I have personally practised the R/S practice; (2) Confidence – I feel confident using the R/S practice for therapeutic purposes with my clients; and (3) Feasibility – My current work setting is well resourced to conduct therapeutic the R/S practice sessions. Internal consistency for the original KCA scale has been shown to be adequate [39].
2.1.3. Need for a guideline
The final question on the survey invited participants to rate their agreement with a comment regarding the need for a therapeutic guideline about the use of R/S sensorimotor practices in mental health. This item was scored using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
2.2. Participants
Targeted participants were MHPs (e.g., psychiatrists, mental health occupational therapists, psychologists, mental health social workers, and mental health nurses) working in Australia. The information sheet and consent forms were embedded in the online survey and only participants indicating that they had mental health experience were admitted to the survey. Participation in the survey was voluntary and no identifiable information was collected.
2.3. Dissemination of survey and data collection
The survey was designed using Qualtrics software. It was available only in English and was disseminated using a weblink through online platforms and social media (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook). Snowball dissemination of the survey was encouraged. Data were collected between November 2020 and February 2021.
2.4. Data analysis
Data analyses were conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows (version 28.0.0). Information about the sample was summarised using descriptive statistics. Three of the thirteen questions in each category (knowledge, confidence, feasibility) were negatively worded; these questions were reverse coded for data analyses. Internal consistency of each category for each of the three R/S practices was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Formal and informal analyses were conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, histogram, and Q-Q plots, to check assumptions. Due to missing data, the numbers of responses in some analyses are lower. All three subscales (knowledge, confidence, feasibility) for each of the three practices (nine variables) met assumptions for normality, so parametric tests were employed including one-way and repeated measures ANOVAs. Where a significant difference (p < 0.05) was noted in ANOVAs, a post-hoc Bonferroni test was used.
3. Results
3.1. Participants
Overall, 105 individuals started the survey and 101 met inclusion criteria; four participants could not advance past the screening question because they responded that they did not have experience in working in mental health. Participants were aged between 22 and 60 years (M = 41.93; SD = 10.27) with experience in mental health ranging from 1 year to 40 years (M = 14.69; SD = 10.46). The largest proportion of survey respondents (39%) were occupational therapists. Nearly half of the participants (49.58%) worked in a community mental health setting, and most (77.08%) worked with adults. More detailed information about participants is provided in Table 1 .
Table 1.
Summary of descriptive information for categorical demographic and study variables.
| Variable | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Education | ||
| Diploma or Certificate or equivalent | 4 | 4.12 |
| Bachelor's degree | 42 | 43.30 |
| Master's degree | 38 | 39.18 |
| PhD or professional doctorate | 13 | 13.40 |
| Profession | ||
| Psychiatrist and Psychiatry registrar | 22 | 21.0 |
| Mental health nurse | 11 | 10.5 |
| Occupational therapist | 41 | 39.0 |
| Psychologist | 8 | 7.6 |
| Social worker | 10 | 9.5 |
| Others: Counsellor, GP, Support worker | 4 | 3.8 |
| Current work setting | ||
| Government or public health setting | 72 | 75 |
| Private health setting | 14 | 14.58 |
| Non-government organisation | 9 | 9.38 |
| Training | 1 | 1.04 |
| Mental health setting | ||
| Inpatient mental health | 20 | 16.81 |
| Outpatient mental health | 22 | 18.49 |
| Community mental health | 59 | 49.58 |
| Rehabilitation centre | 3 | 2.52 |
| Community care centre or similar | 6 | 5.04 |
| Other: School, Unemployed, Suicide prevention across settings, Service wide management, Justice system, Disability private practice |
9 | 7.56 |
| Area of mental health | ||
| Aged care and dementia services | 7 | 7.29 |
| Adult mental health | 67 | 69.79 |
| Child and youth mental health | 16 | 16.67 |
| Infant mental health | 0 | 0 |
| Other: Older adults mental health, Professional leadership/manager, AODS, Justice system | 6 | 6.25 |
Note: AODS = Alcohol and other drug services; GP = General practitioner.
3.2. Knowledge, confidence, and feasibility scale
Internal consistency was assessed for each subscale (knowledge, confidence, feasibility) across three R/S practices (chanting/pranayama/yoga) using Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. Cronbach's alpha was acceptable (α > 0.60) for all subscales. For chanting, Cronbach's alpha was 0.78 for knowledge, 0.65 for confidence, and 0.62 for feasibility. Regarding pranayama, Cronbach's alpha was 0.85 for knowledge, 0.78 for confidence, and 0.74 for feasibility. Finally, for yoga, Cronbach's alpha was 0.70 for knowledge, 0.74 for confidence, and 0.67 for feasibility.
3.3. Knowledge and confidence regarding using R/S practices in mental health clinical settings and difference between professions
Overall mean ratings for knowledge and confidence are shown in Table 2 for each MHP group. The mean knowledge level of respondents was almost 37 overall; all professions revealed means below 42 (maximum possible knowledge score = 75). Confidence ratings were proportionately similar to knowledge ratings. The overall mean for confidence was almost 22, and all professions were below 24.5 (maximum possible confidence score = 45). The one-way ANOVAs conducted to examine differences in MHPs knowledge of and confidence in these practices showed no significant difference between different professionals.
Table 2.
Overall mean ratings of knowledge and confidence, and differences between professions.
| Scale | Profession | n | M | SD | Min score | Max score | Between group difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Knowledge (Possible Range = 15–75) |
Overall | 89 | 36.88 | 11.76 | 15 | 68 | ANOVA |
| Psychiatrist | 21 | 39.62 | 11.90 | 17 | 57 |
F (5,83) = 2.23, p = 0.06 |
|
| Mental Health Nurse | 11 | 38.73 | 11.08 | 22 | 54 | ||
| Occupational Therapist | 40 | 34.78 | 12.11 | 15 | 68 | ||
| Psychologist | 7 | 28.14 | 7.66 | 21 | 42 | ||
| Social Worker |
7 |
41.57 |
8.61 |
26 |
50 |
||
|
Profession |
N |
M |
SD |
Min score |
Max score |
Between group difference |
|
| Confidence (Range = 9–45) | Overall | 89 | 21.83 | 7.52 | 9 | 40 | ANOVA |
| Psychiatrist | 21 | 22.48 | 8.64 | 9 | 38 | F (5,83) = 1.27, p = 0.28 | |
| Mental Health Nurse | 11 | 24.27 | 5.55 | 15 | 31 | ||
| Occupational Therapist | 40 | 21.38 | 7.23 | 11 | 40 | ||
| Psychologist | 7 | 16.00 | 5.41 | 9 | 24 | ||
| Social Worker | 7 | 23.57 | 7.32 | 13 | 34 |
95% Confidence Interval.
3.4. Feasibility of R/S practices in clinical mental health care and differences between professions and health care sectors
Table 3 provides mean ratings for feasibility for the different MHPs who responded to the survey, and for the sectors (government/private/NGOs) in which these MHPs provided mental health care. The mean overall feasibility score was 46 (maximum possible feasibility score = 75). Means for each profession, and for each health care sector, were below 51. A one-way ANOVA conducted to examine differences in MHPs' perceptions of the feasibility of these practices showed a significant difference across the different professionals, F (5, 83) = 3.04, p = 0.01. A post hoc Bonferroni test revealed that psychologists (M = 36.86, SD = 7.33) rated the feasibility of R/S sensorimotor practices significantly lower than occupational therapists (M = 48.30, SD = 7.69, p < 0.01). A one-way ANOVA conducted to examine differences in MHPs' perceptions of the feasibility of these practices based on the sector in which they were employed was not significant.
Table 3.
Feasibility of three practices and differences between different mental health professions and health sectors.
|
Scale |
Across different professions | n | M | SD | Min score | Max score | Between group difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possible Range (15–75) |
Overall | 89 | 46.31 | 8.65 | 27 | 69 | ANOVA |
| Psychiatrist | 21 | 45.10 | 8.46 | 33 | 62 |
F (5,83) = 3.04, p = 0.01 |
|
| Mental Health Nurse | 11 | 44.45 | 7.10 | 30 | 53 | ||
| Occupational Therapist | 40 | 48.30** | 7.69 | 32 | 67 | ||
| Psychologist | 7 | 36.86** | 7.33 | 27 | 46 | ||
| Social Worker |
7 |
48.00 |
12.16 |
33 |
69 |
||
|
Across different sectors |
n |
M |
SD |
Min score |
Max score |
Between group difference |
|
| Overall | 89 | 46.31 | 8.65 | 27 | 69 | ANOVA | |
| Possible Range (15–75) |
Government or public health sector | 68 | 44.99 | 8.14 | 27 | 67 | F (3,85) = 2.48, p = 0.66 |
| Private health sector | 13 | 50.92 | 8.68 | 39 | 69 | ||
| Non-government organisation | 7 | 50.71 | 10.93 | 33 | 60 |
95% Confidence Interval, Significance level - ** = p < 0.01.
3.5. Knowledge, confidence, and feasibility across different R/S practices
Mean ratings for each KCF subscale for each of the three practices are shown in Table 4 . A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare knowledge, confidence, and feasibility ratings across three R/S practices. Mauchly's test of sphericity was not significant for knowledge (p = 0.79) and confidence (p = 0.14). However, Mauchly's test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was not met for ratings of feasibility (p = 0.004); thus, degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates for this part of the KCF scale.
Table 4.
Comparison of knowledge, confidence, and feasibility levels across different R/S practices.
|
Scale |
R/S Practice | N | M | SD | Min score | Max score | One way repeated ANOVA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | |||||||
| Possible Range (5−25) | Chanting | 89 | 10.00 | 4.41 | 5 | 21 | F (2, 176) = 37.88, p < 0.001 |
| Pranayama | 89 | 12.73** | 5.51 | 5 | 25 | ||
| Yoga |
89 |
14.15** |
4.16 |
5 |
25 |
||
|
Confidence | |||||||
| Possible Range (3−15) | Chanting | 89 | 6.37 | 2.88 | 3 | 14 | F (2, 176) = 9.34, p < 0.001 |
| Pranayama | 89 | 7.76** | 3.43 | 3 | 15 | ||
| Yoga |
89 |
7.70** |
3.24 |
3 |
14 |
||
|
Feasibility | |||||||
| Possible Range (5−25) | Chanting | 89 | 13.39 | 3.45 | 5 | 24 | F (2,176) = 41.31, p < 0.001 |
| Pranayama | 89 | 16.53** | 3.82 | 7 | 25 | ||
| Yoga | 89 | 16.39** | 3.45 | 9 | 25 | ||
Significance levels- ** = p < 0.01.
Self-rated knowledge was statistically different across the three R/S practices, F (2, 176) = 37.88, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.30. Bonferroni post hoc tests, using an alpha of 0.017 (0.05/3) indicated that knowledge ratings for yoga (M = 14.15, SD = 4.16) were significantly higher than both pranayama (M = 12.73, SD = 5.51, p = 0.017), F (2, 176) = 37.88, p < 0.017; and chanting (M = 10, SD = 4.41, p < 0.001), F (2, 176) = 37.88, p < 0.001. Knowledge ratings of pranayama (M = 12.73, SD = 5.51) was also significantly higher than that of chanting (M = 10, SD = 4.41, p < 0.001), F (2, 176) = 37.88, p < 0.001.
The one-way repeated measures ANOVA conducted for confidence also showed a significant main effect across the three practices, F (2, 176) = 9.34, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.096. As shown in Table 4, MHPs rated their confidence levels highest for pranayama, followed by yoga, with chanting rating lowest. Bonferroni post hoc tests (α = 0.017) showed that confidence ratings for pranayama (M = 7.76, SD = 3.43) were significantly higher than chanting (M = 6.37, SD = 2.88, p < 0.001), F (2, 176) = 9.34, p < 0.001. Yoga ratings (M = 7.70, SD = 3.24) were also significantly higher than chanting (M = 6.37, SD = 2.88, p < 0.001), F (2, 176) = 9.34, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in confidence ratings for pranayama (M = 7.76, SD = 3.43) and yoga (M = 7.70, SD = 3.24, p = 1.00).
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA also showed a main effect of feasibility across the three R/S practices, F (1.78, 157) = 41.31, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.319. Bonferroni post hoc tests (α = 0.017) revealed that chanting (M = 13.39, SD = 3.45) was rated as significantly less feasible than yoga (M = 16.39, SD = 3.82, p < 0.001), F (2, 176) = 41.31, p < 0.001; and for pranayama (M = 16.53, SD = 3.82, p < 0.001), F (2, 176) = 41.31, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference between ratings for yoga (M = 16.39, SD = 3.82) and pranayama (M = 16.53, SD = 3.82, p = 1.00).
3.6. Personal experience of R/S practice
As seen in Table 5 , over 73% of participating MHPs had personal experience of practicing yoga. About 40% of respondents indicated that they had personal experience of chanting, while over 56% had practiced pranayama.
Table 5.
Participants' perspective on need for a guideline, training and resources, and personal experience of R/S practice.
| Question | N | Strongly agree n (%) | Somewhat agree n (%) | Neither agree nor disagree n (%) | Somewhat disagree n (%) | Strongly disagree n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I have personally practiced this R/S practice | ||||||
| Chanting | 91 | 10 (11) | 27 (29.7) | 6 (6.6) | 11 (12.1) | 37 (40.7) |
| Pranayama | 89 | 22 (24.7) | 28 (31.5) | 4 (4.5) | 13 (14.6) | 22 (24.7) |
| Yoga |
89 |
41 (46.1) |
24 (27) |
5 (5.6) |
10 (11.2) |
9 (10.1) |
| A guideline that can inform the use of evidence-based sensorimotor R/S practices in mental health is needed | ||||||
| 101 |
60 (67.42) |
23 (25.84) |
5 (5.62) |
1 (1.12) |
0 (0.00) |
|
| To conduct therapy sessions with my clients, I require more training and knowledge in | ||||||
| Chanting | 91 | 47 (51.6) | 18 (19.8) | 13 (14.3) | 6 (6.6) | 7 (7.7) |
| Pranayama | 89 | 35 (39.3) | 30 (33.7) | 13 (14.6) | 8 (9) | 3 (3.4) |
| Yoga |
89 |
44 (49.4) |
23 (25.8) |
13 (14.6) |
4 (4.5) |
5 (5.6) |
| My current work setting is well resourced to conduct therapeutic for R/S practice sessions | ||||||
| Chanting | 91 | 2 (2.2) | 7 (7.7) | 17 (18.7) | 28 (30.8) | 37 (40.7) |
| Pranayama | 89 | 10 (11.2) | 23 (25.8) | 18 (20.2) | 21 (23.6) | 17 (19.1) |
| Yoga |
89 |
8 (9.0) |
14 (15.7) |
20 (22.5) |
24 (27.0) |
23 (25.8) |
| My current work setting would require more resources for me to be able to conduct sessions of R/S practices | ||||||
| Chanting | 91 | 28 (30.8) | 28 (30.8) | 22 (24.2) | 6 (6.6) | 7 (7.7) |
| Pranayama | 89 | 20 (22.5) | 31 (34.8) | 20 (22.5) | 10 (11.2) | 8 (9.0) |
| Yoga | 89 | 31 (34.8) | 38 (42.7) | 9 (10.1) | 7 (7.9) | 4 (4.5) |
3.7. Need for a guideline, training, and resources in mental health settings
As shown in Table 5, most respondents (93.26%) agreed that a guideline is required to inform MHPs about the use of evidence-based sensorimotor R/S practices in mental health. A high proportion of respondents expressed the need for training to conduct sessions of chanting (71.4%), pranayama (73%), and yoga (75.2%) in mental health settings. In terms of resources for each of the practices, only 9.9% of respondents agreed that their settings were well resourced for chanting, with 61.6% indicating a need for greater resources in their setting to conduct chanting sessions. For pranayama, 37% of MHPs indicated that their setting was well-resourced for this practice, but a need for further resources was still expressed by 57.3% of respondents. The expressed need for additional resources was highest for yoga (77.5%), with only 24.7% of participating MHPs agreeing that their settings were well-resourced.
4. Discussion
This study was conducted to obtain a preliminary understanding of MHPs' knowledge and confidence, and their perceptions of the feasibility of using three sensorimotor R/S practices – chanting, pranayama, and yoga – in clinical mental health settings in Australia. This information is needed to gain insight into the viability of using these practices and to inform strategies to transfer of evidence regarding the mental health benefits of R/S practices into clinical settings.
A key aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and confidence levels of MHPs regarding the use of three sensorimotor R/S practices – chanting, pranayama, and yoga. MHPs reported relatively low levels of ratings for both knowledge and confidence across all three R/S practices. While no significant differences were found for ratings by different MHPs, psychologists reported the lowest levels of knowledge and confidence compared to other health professionals. This may be because typical psychological interventions focus more on cognition and conversational skills [15], with minimal involvement of sensorimotor components. This finding is consistent with a qualitative study with 12 psychologists in which they revealed their confusion, lack of confidence, and apprehension regarding the use of alternative therapies (including some sensorimotor R/S practices) for mental health [38]. In our survey, across three practices, MHPs rated relatively higher knowledge and confidence levels for yoga and pranayama than chanting. With the greater popularity of yoga in Australia [18], MHPs possibly were more informed about yoga compared to the other two practices. Despite overall lower confidence levels, MHPs reported the highest confidence levels in using pranayama as a therapeutic intervention. The apparent similarity of pranayama practice with breathing strategies used in conventional mental health intervention [40] is possibly attributed to the higher confidence level of MHPs for using this practice as a mental health intervention.
Ratings for feasibility were more promising, with the three R/S sensorimotor practices generally viewed as feasible alternative supplementary therapies for mental health. Again, psychologists' ratings were the lowest of the MHPs, likely reflecting their focus on mental health interventions that are cognition-based and conversational [15]. In contrast, the significantly higher level of feasibility reported by occupational therapists is not surprising given their strong sensorimotor focus in mental health interventions [41]. Trained in theoretical and practical aspects of sensorimotor interventions, occupational therapists potentially had greater insight into use of considered R/S practices as interventions, which may have attributed to their higher ratings of feasibility. This finding aligns with the results of a survey with student health professionals where occupational therapy students were more likely to see the importance of a sensorimotor R/S practice yoga and refer patients to yoga than other professionals, including psychologists [42].
In addition to exploring whether feasibility ratings would differ across the different groups of MHPs, the influence of the health sectors in which MHPs worked was also examined. Overall, MHPs' generally agreed that R/S practices may be feasible interventions in clinical mental health care, with the private mental health sector receiving the highest feasibility ratings and the government the lowest.
Although these practices were generally perceived to be potentially feasible, participants indicated that mental health services lacked the resources needed for these practices. While the need for resources was particularly evident for chanting, MHPs indicated more resources were needed for yoga and pranayama. This finding may be related to the knowledge that a larger percentage of MHPs in our survey had personal experience of doing yoga and pranayama compared to chanting. Having practised yoga and pranayama themselves, MHPs potentially had better acceptability for these two practices which might explain their higher rating to have more resources for yoga and pranayama rather than chanting. With less personal experience of chanting, they may have been unclear about the resources that might be needed and defaulted to negative responses as a result. Consistent with this explanation, in a survey with 478 health students, participants with the personal practice of yoga showed greater acceptability for the practice than the students with no personal experience of yoga [42].
The low overall levels of knowledge and confidence align with the MHPs' expressed need for training and for guidelines to implement these practices in mental health settings. Nearly half of the MHPs in this study reported they would need training to conduct sessions of yoga and chanting, and about one-third indicated that training would be needed for pranayama. While training those MHPs who may be willing to use these practices as mental health intervention is an option, trained experts could also be hired to conduct intervention sessions. Most of the MHPs in our survey had personal experience of yoga practice, which may have influenced their rating of the need for training. Having practised yoga themselves, respondents potentially felt more comfortable with using yoga as an intervention but also recognised the potential constraints of yoga, hence requiring more training before using the practice as an intervention. This proposition aligns with the recommendation of the authors of a review of 52 yoga studies [28]. These authors stressed the importance of training clinicians on potential benefits and limitations of yoga before using this practice as an intervention in healthcare settings [28]. The perceptions of MHPs in the present study about the need for training are also consistent with recommendations of other authors regarding the requirement for training of MHPs should they use yoga as a clinical intervention [28,[43], [44], [45]].
The final aim of the survey was to investigate if participants perceived a need for a guideline to inform MHPs about the use of R/S practices for therapeutic purpose. Most respondents strongly agreed that a guideline was needed. This finding is consistent with other studies [38,[45], [46], [47], [48]]. For example, in a qualitative study, psychologists identified the need for a guideline for using alternative interventions (including some sensorimotor R/S practices) in mental health [38], this study however did not specifically focus on sensorimotor R/S practices. Some studies have provided guiding information on integrating some R/S practices, such as breathwork [25], in mental health counselling. Others noted ethical considerations of integrating yoga in psychotherapeutic interventions [47]. Nevertheless, there is no guideline available for MHPs that may provide detailed information or guiding principles to support the integration of all R/S practices in mental health clinical settings.
Overall, findings indicated that the three R/S practices considered in this survey – chanting, pranayama, and yoga – may warrant further consideration as a possible intervention in mental health settings. While our survey did not specifically examine the feasibility of any specific format of delivery (face-to-face or online), there is evidence of the possible efficacy of using these practices through telehealth [19,[49], [50], [51]], which may be especially important in the current COVID-19 situation. For instance, an intervention trial of online chanting found this practice to be a feasible intervention in reducing anxiety levels [19]. Yoga has also been identified as a feasible intervention when delivered via telehealth [[49], [50], [51]]. For instance in a study, yoga conducted through telehealth was effective for mental health outcomes, and the integration of telehealth yoga in clinical programs was suggested as an acceptable, feasible, and effective intervention for veterans [20]. In a recent study, tele-yoga was found to be a feasible and effective intervention in mental health [45]. While pranayama was also rated as a potentially feasible intervention in our survey, the feasibility of this practice delivered through videoconference is unclear. In a randomised controlled trial, breathwork, including pranayama delivered through teleconference reduced the level of anxiety [52]. Although the authors of this study did not compare the format of delivery (face-to-face versus online), they recommended face-to-face delivery as a more feasible medium for pranayama, possibly due to the complexity of instructions involved in the intervention [52]. It is possible that the feasibility of the R/S practices considered in this survey may have been viewed higher if MHPs had been asked to consider different delivery formats.
In considering perceptions of MHPs from our survey, evidence from cited literature, and studies of the possible utility of R/S practices as an online intervention, sensorimotor R/S practices may be considered as a potential supplementary alternative to conventional mental health care. The findings of this study may be more useful in the current health climate when access to mental health care is reduced due to COVID-19.
5. Limitations and future considerations
Three well-evidenced R/S practices were considered in this survey; however, there are other sensorimotor R/S practices (e.g., tai chi) that may be considered in future investigations. While the survey was distributed to a wide range of MHPs in Australia, occupational therapists were over-represented in the sample obtained. Similarly, although MHP respondents were from many different mental health settings, about half were from community mental health. It is important to consider that more than two third of respondents were from government sectors. The sample was also relatively small, with lower numbers in some analyses due to missing data which may have affected power. As a result, the sample may not be representative of all MHPs in Australia or relevant to MHPs in other countries. Due to the quantitative nature of the design, the survey did not capture the subjective opinions of MHPs, which may have provided richer and more nuanced information. Finally, the perception of MHPs on the mode of delivery (face-to-face or online) of these interventions was not investigated. A mixed methods design survey with a larger number of participants, that includes MHPs from other countries and additional R/S practices, and questions regarding the mode of delivery (face-to-face or online), may provide a broader and deeper understanding of the viability of R/S practices as therapeutic interventions in mental health settings. With additional resources, training of MHPs, and the development of a clinical guideline, R/S practices such as chanting, pranayama, and yoga, could be considered viable interventions in clinical mental health settings. Further research is needed to consider this proposition.
6. Conclusion
Overall, knowledge and confidence ratings provided by MHPs were low, with the majority indicating a need for guidelines and additional resources and training would be needed if MHPs are to be considered as potential professionals to implement these practices in mental health settings. Ratings of feasibility were more promising, with overall ratings suggesting MHPs viewed these R/S sensorimotor practices as possible alternative supplementary therapies for mental health. Yoga and pranayama were considered more viable than chanting but respondents indicated that additional training was needed to be able to use R/S practices as interventions. While all mental health services required additional resources, clinical settings in government sectors appeared to be the least resourced to conduct R/S practices therapeutic interventions. Finally, the majority of MHPs strongly agreed on the need for an overarching guideline for use of R/S practices in mental health. The findings of this survey may inform future research and development of a practice guideline regarding the use of R/S practices as alternative supplementary interventions to conventional mental health care. Further research is needed to identify facilitators and barriers to integrating these practices in clinical mental health settings in Australia.
Authorship contribution statement
SM contributed to the protocol development, overall design, survey development, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation. PM and BZ contributed to the overall design, survey development, data analysis, and review of the manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author note
Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
This research project was not supported by any financial grant.
Declaration of competing interest
The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Stipend Scholarship.
Footnotes
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101668.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the Supplementary data to this article:
References
- 1.Nochaiwong S., Ruengorn C., Kednapa T., et al. Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021;11(1) doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89700-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Xiong J., Lipsitz O., Nasri F., et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a systematic review. Journal of Affective. 2020;Disorders277:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.UNSDG . United Nations Sustainable Development Group; 2020, May 13. Policy Brief: COVID-19 and the Need for Action on Mental Health.https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-covid-19-and-need-action-mental-health [Google Scholar]
- 4.Herman P.M., Poindexter B.L., Witt C.M., et al. Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations. British Medical Journal open. 2012;2(5) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Burnett-Zeigler I., Schuette S., Victorson D., et al. Mind-body approaches to treating mental health symptoms among disadvantaged populations: a comprehensive review. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 2016;22(2):115–124. doi: 10.1089/acm.2015.0038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sickel A.E., Seacat J.D., Nabors N.A. Mental health stigma: impact on mental health treatment attitudes and physical health. J. Health Psychol. 2019;24(5):586–599. doi: 10.1177/1359105316681430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hanson K., Webb T.L., Sheeran P., Turpin G. Attitudes and preferences towards self-help treatments for depression in Comparison to psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. Behav. Cognit. Psychother. 2016;44(2):129–139. doi: 10.1017/S1352465815000041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hurst S., Maiya M., Casteel D., Sarkin A.J., Libretto S., Elwy A.R., Park C.L., Groessl E.J. Yoga therapy for military personnel and veterans: qualitative perspectives of yoga students and instructors. Compl. Ther. Med. 2018;40:222–229. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2017.10.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Anderson N., Heywood-Everett S., Siddiqi N., et al. Faith-adapted psychological therapies for depression and anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2015;176:183–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Beckstead D.J., Lambert M.J., DuBose A.P., et al. Dialectical behavior therapy with American Indian/Alaska Native adolescents diagnosed with substance use disorders: combining an evidence-based treatment with cultural, traditional, and spiritual beliefs. Addict. Behav. 2015;51:84–87. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Baehr J. Buddhist practice-based psychotherapy. J. Spirituality Ment. Health. 2009;11(1/2):107–125. doi: 10.1080/19349630902864184. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Greeson J., Webber D., Smoski M., et al. Changes in spirituality partly explain health-related quality of life outcomes after Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. J. Behav. Med. 2011;34(6):508–518. doi: 10.1007/s10865-011-9332-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Haque A., Keshavarzi H. Integrating indigenous healing methods in therapy: muslim beliefs and practices. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health. 2014;7(3):297–314. doi: 10.1080/17542863.2013.794249. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Malviya S., Zupan B., Meredith P. Evidence of religious/spiritual singing and movement in mental health: A systematic review. Compl. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2022;47:101567. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Pugh M. A little less talk, a little more action: a dialogical approach to cognitive therapy. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist. 2019;12:e47. doi: 10.1017/S1754470X19000333. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shields G.S., Trainor B.C., Lam J.C., et al. Acute stress impairs cognitive flexibility in men, not women. Stress. 2016;19(5):542–546. doi: 10.1080/10253890.2016.1192603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cramer H., Sibbritt D., Park C.L., et al. Is the practice of yoga or meditation associated with a healthy lifestyle? Results of a national cross-sectional survey of 28,695 Australian women. J. Psychosom. Res. 2017;101:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lauche R., Sibbritt D., Adams J., et al. Characteristics of yoga and meditation users among older Australian women–results from the 45 and up study. Compl. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2019;35:219–223. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Simpson F.M., Perry G., Thompson W.F. Assessing vocal chanting as an online psychosocial intervention. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:647632. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647632. 647632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Schulz-Heik R.J., Meyer H., Mahoney L., Stanton M.V., Cho R.H., Moore-Downing D.P., Avery T.J., Lazzeroni L.C., Varni J.M., Collery L.M. Results from a clinical yoga program for veterans: yoga via telehealth provides comparable satisfaction and health improvements to in-person yoga. BMC Compl. Alternative Med. 2017;17(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s12906-017-1705-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Cramer H., Lauche R., Klose P., et al. Yoga for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatr. 2013;13(1):32. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cramer H., Anheyer D., Lauche R., et al. A systematic review of yoga for major depressive disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 2017;213:70–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Walker J., Pacik D. Controlled rhythmic yogic breathing as complementary treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in military veterans: a case series. Med. Acupunct. 2017;29(4):232–238. doi: 10.1089/acu.2017.1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bormann J., Beck D., Glickman M., et al. Meditation-based mantram repetition program for veterans with ptsd: a randomized controlled trial in the va healthcare system. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 2014;20(5):A10. doi: 10.1089/acm.2014.5022. A10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Aideyan B., Martin G.C., Beeson E.T. A practitioner's guide to breathwork in clinical mental health counseling. J. Ment. Health Counsel. 2020;42(1):78–94. doi: 10.17744/mehc.42.1.06. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Victoria H.K., Caldwell C. Breathwork in body psychotherapy: clinical applications. Body Mov. Dance Psychother. 2013;8(4):216–228. doi: 10.1080/17432979.2013.828657. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Avery T.J., Schulz-Heik R.J., Friedman M., et al. Clinical yoga program utilization in a large health care system. Psychol. Serv. 2021;18(3):389–397. doi: 10.1037/ser0000420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bayley-Veloso R., Salmon P.G. Yoga in clinical practice. Mindfulness. 2016;7(2):308–319. doi: 10.1007/s12671-015-0449-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Malviya S., Meredith P., Zupan B., et al. Identifying alternative mental health interventions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of chanting and breathwork. J. Spirituality Ment. Health. 2022:1–43. doi: 10.1080/19349637.2021.2010631. 10.1080/19349637.2021.2010631. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Saoji A.A., Raghavendra B.R., Manjunath N.K. Effects of yogic breath regulation: a narrative review of scientific evidence. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. 2019;10(1):50–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jaim.2017.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sharma A., Barrett M.S., Cucchiara A.J., et al. A breathing-based meditation intervention for patients with major depressive disorder following inadequate response to antidepressants: a randomized pilot study. J. Clin. Psychiatr. 2017;78(1):e59–e63. doi: 10.4088/JCP.16m10819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lynch J., Prihodova L., Dunne P.J., et al. Mantra meditation for mental health in the general population: a systematic review. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2018;23:101–108. doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2018.09.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Perry G.N. Macquarie University; Sydney, Australia: 2017. Chanting Decreases Stress and Increases Social Connection. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Brinsley J., Schuch F., Lederman O., et al. Effects of yoga on depressive symptoms in people with mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020 doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hendriks T., de Jong J., Cramer H. The effects of yoga on positive mental health among healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 2017;23(7):505–517. doi: 10.1089/acm.2016.0334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pascoe M.C., Bauer I.E. A systematic review of randomised control trials on the effects of yoga on stress measures and mood. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2015;68:270–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Xue C.C., Zhang A.L., Lin V., et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use in Australia: a national population-based survey. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 2007;13(6):643–650. doi: 10.1089/acm.2006.6355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Wilson L.A.M., White K.M. Integrating complementary and alternative therapies into psychological practice: a qualitative analysis. Aust. J. Psychol. 2011;63(4):232–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00022.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Meredith P., Yeates H., Greaves A., et al. Preparing mental health professionals for new directions in mental health practice: evaluating the sensory approaches e-learning training package. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2018;27(1):106–115. doi: 10.1111/inm.12299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hopper S.I., Murray S.L., Ferrara L.R., et al. Effectiveness of diaphragmatic breathing for reducing physiological and psychological stress in adults: a quantitative systematic review. JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports. 2019;17(9):1855–1876. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Craswell G., Dieleman C., Ghanouni P. An integrative review of sensory approaches in adult inpatient mental health: implications for occupational therapy in prison-based mental health services. Occup. Ther. Ment. Health. 2021;37(2):130–157. doi: 10.1080/0164212X.2020.1853654. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Sulenes K., Freitas J., Justice L., Colgan D.D., Shean M., Brems C. Underuse of yoga as a referral resource by health professions students. J. Altern. Compl. Med. 2014;21(1):53–59. doi: 10.1089/acm.2014.0217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Bidgoli M.M., Taghadosi M., Gilasi H., et al. The effect of sukha pranayama on anxiety in patients undergoing coronary angiography: a single -blind randomized controlled trial. J. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Res. 2016;8(4):170–175. doi: 10.15171/jcvtr.2016.34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Dhruva A., Miaskowski C., Abrams D., et al. Yoga breathing for cancer chemotherapy-associated symptoms and quality of life: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Alternative Compl. Med. 2012;18(5):473–479. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Jagannathan A., Bhide S.R., Varambally S., et al. Tele-yoga therapy for common mental health disorders: need for assessment tool and guidelines. Int. J. Yoga. 2021;14(1):83–86. doi: 10.4103/ijoy.IJOY_99_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Drew D., Banks J., Joseph R. Religion and spirituality in clinical practice: an exploration of comfort and discomfort among practitioners. J. Relig. Spiritual. Soc. Work Soc. Thought. 2021:1–17. doi: 10.1080/15426432.2021.1994099. 10.1080/15426432.2021.1994099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Kamradt J.M. Integrating yoga into psychotherapy: the ethics of moving from the mind to the mat. Compl. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2017;27:27–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2017.01.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.McSherry W., Jamieson S. An online survey of nurses' perceptions of spirituality and spiritual care. J. Clin. Nurs. 2011;20(11–12):1757–1767. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03547.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Gangadhar B., Varambally S. Integrating yoga in mental health services. Indian J. Med. Res. 2015;141(6):747–748. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.160685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Hart J. Yoga as an adjunctive therapy in the clinical setting. Alternative Compl. Ther. 2013;19(2):89–93. doi: 10.1089/act.2013.19204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Stephens I. Medical yoga therapy. Children. 2017;4(2):12. doi: 10.3390/children4020012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Shukla M., Chauhan D., Raj R. Breathing exercises and pranayamas to decrease perceived exertion during breath-holding while locked-down due to COVID-19 online randomized study. Compl. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2020;41 doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.