Efficacy of basic body awareness therapy on functional outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose: This study examined the efficacy of basis body awareness therapy (BBAT) on functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in patients with mental health problems and long-lasting conditions including musculoskeletal disorders, chronic and psychosomatic pain, and neurological conditions. Material and Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro from inception to April 1st, 2022. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to explore the efficacy of BBAT versus non-active and active control conditions. Results: Eight RCTs (n BBAT = 307, n controls = 428) were included. There was no evidence for reductions in anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.30 to 0.46, p = 0.14), depression (SMD = -0.82, 95% CI = -1.85 to 0.21, p = 0.12), and no improvements in global assessment of functioning for functioning (GAF-F) (SMD = 0.58, 95% CI = -0.03 to 1.19, p = 0.06) or for symptoms (GAF-S) (SMD = 0.76, 95% CI = -0.44 to 1.96, p = 0.21) in BBAT versus non-active control conditions. BBAT reduced anxiety significantly more than active interventions (SMD = -0.84, 95% CI = -1.17 to -0.51, p < 0.001). No significant differences between BBAT and active control conditions were found for reduction in depression (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI = -2.74 to 0.41, p = 0.15) or in self-reported pain (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.40, p = 0.65). Active control conditions were superior in improving QoL (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.17, p < 0.001), GAF-F (SMD = 1.58, 95% CI = 0.29 to 2.86, p = 0.016) and GAF-S (SMD = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.53, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Physiotherapists should be cautious in adopting BBAT, noting there is no high-quality evidence to support its' use to improve functionality and QoL in patients with mental health problems and/or long-lasting conditions.