Evaluating the Evidence of Respiratory Therapies on Anxiety: Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research
Problematic
Anxiety disorders significantly impact global health, yet pharmacological treatments often yield unsatisfactory patient outcomes due to side effects. This underscores the urgency for effective, non-pharmacological alternatives, with respiratory therapies emerging as a promising option. This synthesis evaluates their efficacy in anxiety management, aiming to integrate such interventions into broader clinical practice and research.
Method/Analysis
Employing a systematic search across PubMed and PsycINFO from 2010 onwards, this review focuses on empirical studies assessing the impact of respiratory therapies on anxiety. Through rigorous screening and adherence to established synthesis guidelines, the study ensures methodological robustness, confronting literature to identify effective breathwork techniques.
Results/Discussion
Analysis of 11 studies reveals small to medium positive effects of breathing interventions on anxiety, demonstrating broad applicability across various populations, including those with COPD. The findings align with current literature, emphasizing breathwork’s role in enhancing mental health and physiological well-being, and highlighting the need for standardized protocols to maximize therapeutic outcomes.
Conclusion
Respiratory therapies offer a viable strategy for anxiety disorder management, advocating for their inclusion in treatment plans. This review underscores the necessity for further research on long-term effects and the mechanisms underlying breathwork’s benefits, encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration for integrating these practices into mental healthcare.
Keywords: Anxiety disorders, Respiratory therapies, Breathwork, Non-pharmacological interventions, Mental health care.
Ethical consideration
This synthesis adheres to ethical standards, focusing on empirical studies conducted in compliance with existing legislation, ensuring the dignity and privacy of participants across the reviewed research.