Digital Delivery of Meditative Movement Training Improved Health of Cigarette-Smoke-Exposed Subjects

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Participant flow and timeline. After recruiting and pre-testing, participants were randomized to intervention and control groups. Following the training period, participants were tested again, and the control group participants were offered the opportunity to receive the same MM training. After all participants had completed the training, two final questionnaires were administered. Dropouts and numbers responding to questionnaires are shown.

• 

  Figure 2. A typical MM practice. One of the authors demonstrating an MM exercise, showing how to sense correct alignment with gravity while seated.

• 

  Figure 3. Positive evaluation of training by 81% of participants. Average response to the Survey Monkey questions is shown by participant. Out of 32 respondents (16 from the MM group and 16 from the control group who opted to receive the MM training), 26 made an average positive evaluation. Distance above the x-axis indicates degree of positive response, below the x-axis indicates negative response.

• 

  Figure 4. Positive average response by all participants to each Survey Monkey question. Improved stress coping received the strongest positive response. Y-axis indicates degree of negative or positive responses. 16 of the MM intervention participants and 16 from the control group who opted to do the MM training responded. Not all participants answered all questions.

• 

  Figure 5. Reported adoption of MM exercises is correlated with health improvement over the prior year. Reported health change over the duration of the study is shown in graphical form, with green the most positive and red the most negative. Physical health change and affective health change are shown separately and summed for total health score. Exercise adoption score is also shown, and the data are ordered according to this score. Averages are shown at the bottom. Table 4 below shows correlational analysis.

• 

  Figure 6. Improved 6MWT score for MM group vs. control group. Subjects in the MM group averaged a 7% increase in distance covered in the 6MWT over the 4 months between pre- and post-testing. Control HE subjects averaged a −2% change during the same time frame. ANOVA yields a p < 0.005.

• 

  Figure 7. Reduction in CATest scores for MM subjects. MM subjects scored a 32% decrease on the COPD assessment test indicating decrease in symptoms between pre and post-testing while those in the control HE group averaged an increase of 12% in COPD assessment test symptom score. ANOVA yields a p < 0.01.

• 

  Figure 8. Improved interoception in MM group as shown by MAIA score. Subjects in the MM group averaged a 24% increase in MAIA overall interoceptive awareness score over the 4 months between pre and post-testing. Control subjects averaged a 1% decrease during the same time frame. ANOVA analysis yields a p < 0.005.

• 

  Figure 9. MM intervention group shows substantially more improvement in all sub-scores of the MAIA, as compared with the HE control group. The changes in MAIA sub-scores over the 4 months period are shown next to each other for the two groups. The difference between sub-scores for Self-regulation reached significance at p < 0.05 (ANOVA).

• 

  Figure 10. DHEAS increased by 42% in the MM intervention group over the 3 months of the study, compared with a drop of 10% in the HE control group. This result nearly reaches significance at p = 0.0566 (ANOVA).

• 

  Figure 11. The MM intervention group showed improved autonomic function over the study period, the HE control group showed reduced function. The COMPASS 31 questionnaire measuring autonomic function shows a substantial difference between the groups. The MM group improved by 9%, while the control group worsened by 7% over the study period. These results did not reach stated significance threshold (p = 0.1).