|   | 
		
			| Author (Year) | Population Characteristics | Methods | Intervention | Control | Outcomes of Interest | Instrument, if applicable | Critical Findings | 
		
			| # | Country | Age, Mean (SD), Range | Sex | Previous QG Practice | Type of QG | 
		
			| Balance | 
		
			| Liu et al. (2015) [64] # | 95 | China | QG: 67.1 (6.18) C: 66.63 (5.98) | QG: 9M, 38F C: 11M, 37F | None | BDJ | 12 weeks, instruction/practice with QG professional for two weeks (twice a week, 30-40 min each), then practice for 10 weeks (twice a week, 30-40 min each) Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks | QG and health education, N=47   | Walking and health education, N=48       | Study efficacy of BDJ on falls and balance of Chinese senior with chronic disease | 1) Falls (MFES) | At 12 weeks, QG vs. C: 1) significant improvement of MFES scores among intervention group, 132.41±12.59 vs. 123.4±14.3, p<.05 | 
		
			| Yang et al. (2007) [63] | 49   | U.S. | QG: 80.2 (9.02), 60-97 C: 80.9 (7.97), 67-94 | QG: 5M, 28F C: 5M, 11F | NR | Tai Chi Chen style essential 48 form and QG meditation | 6 months, 3 days a week, 60 min each session Data taken at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months | N=33 | Wait-list, N=16 | Evaluate changes in balance mechanism from Tai Chi Qigong program | 1) Posture (SOT) 2) Stability (BOS, feet opening angle) | At 6 months, between QG and C: 1) Relative SOT vestibular ratios for the QG group were 47% greater than C, p<0.01 2) BoS measurements were 27% greater for the QG group than C, p<0.01. No differences were observed in feet opening angle.   For QG group: 1) Normalized SOT vestibular ratio scores increased significantly by 34% above baseline at 2 months (p<0.01), and increased 6% between 2 months and 6 months (p>.05) 2) The normalized BoS score was 28% above baseline at T2 (P<0.01) and was maintained at 30% above baseline T6 (P<0.01). | 
		
			| Wenneberg et al. (2004) [65] | 31   | Sweden | 33-80 | 17F, 19M | NR | NR | 12 weeks (Weekend immersion, then 45–50 min once a week for 4 weeks, then every other week for 8 weeks with instructor) Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks | N=16 | Wait-List, N=15 | Effects of QG in patients with muscular dystrophy | 1) Balance (BBS) 2) QoL (SF-36) 3) Coping (WCQ) 4) Depression (MADRS) | After 12 weeks, 1) no between group difference (p=.128) 2) significant difference between groups in general health perceptions after intervention (p=.027), none in other areas 3)significant between-group difference in positive reappraisal (p=.052), none in other areas 4) no significant differences between group or within group | 
		
			| Cognitive Function | 
		
			| Oh et al. (2012) [66] | 81 | Australia | QG: 64.6 (12.3) C: 61.1 (11.0) | QG: 18F, 18M C: 20F, 20M | None | MQ (Daoyin) | 10 weeks, two supervised 90-min sessions per week. Data collected at baseline and 10 weeks   | N=37 | Usual care, N=44 | Evaluate effects of MQ on cognitive function, quality of life, and inflammation | 1) Cognitive function (EORTC-CF and FACT-Cog) 2) QoL (FACT-G) 3) Inflammation (CRP) | At 10 weeks, QG compared to C: 1) improved cognitive function (EORTC), mean difference=7.78 (CI, -0.35 to 15.92), p=.01 Improved cognitive function (FACT-Cog), mean difference=4.70 (CI, -.30 to 9.71), p=.03 2) improved total QoL, mean difference 12.66 (CI, 8.00 to 17.32), p<.001 3) less inflammation, mean difference=-0.72 (CI, -1.37 to -0.07), p=.04 | 
		
			| Diabetes | 
		
			| Wei and Wu (2014) [67] # | 60 | China | 54-73 QG: 63.9 (7.6) Walking: 64.8 (5.8) C: 65.3 (6.0) | 38M 22F | None | BDJ | 12 weeks, at least 5 days/week, 3 times a day Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks   | QG, N=20 Walking group, N=20 | N=20   | Observe the clinical efficacy of BDJ on type 2 diabetes patient’s health states. | 1) Diabetes related health status (CSSD-70) 2) QoL (SF-36) | At 12 weeks, QG versus control group: 1) significantly better diabetes-related health: 85.2±3.1 vs. 77.4±6.2, p<.05 2) significantly better quality of life Physical component: 88±10.9 vs, 82.4±7.4, p<.05 Mental component: 77.7±9.3 vs. 67±7.9, p<.05 | 
		
			| Pain | 
		
			| Cai et al. (2015) [57]# | 60 | China | QG: 50.8 (8.0) C: 49.9 (8.0) | QG: 16M, 14F C: 17M, 13F | None | BDJ | 6 months, twice a day, 30 min each VAS data collected baseline and 1 month Subjective pain data collected at 1  month and 6 months | N=30 | N=30 | Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on the treatment and recovery of patients with spinal disease. | 1) Pain (VAS) 2) subjective pain assessment | After 1 month, QG vs. control group: 1) 3.5± 1.1 vs. 4.0±1.3, p<.05 2) QG: 14 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 7 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (70%). Control: 7 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 6 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (43.3%).   After 6 months: 2) QG: 20 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 6 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (86%) Control: 11 out of 30 participants reported ‘fully recovery’ another 5 participants reported have some improvement of their disease (53%). | 
		
			| Wang et al. (2014) [59] | 72 | China | QG: 57.06 (8.96) C: 59.37 (6.51) | QG: 27F, 7M C: 24F, 11M | None within 6 months | BDJ | 6 months (2 hours a day training for first two weeks, then 30 min collective exercise daily) Data collected at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months | N=36 | Weekly 30 min telephone interview, N=36 | Observe long-term effects of regular BDJ exercises on chronic neck pain | 1) Pain (VAS, NPQ) 2) SF-36 | At 6 months, differences between BDJ and control 1) less pain (VAS): 48.97 (18.54) vs. 57.71 (12.91), p=.026 less pain (NPQ): 20.17 (17.43) vs. 27.25 (9.59), p=.04 2) all NS except improved health transition, 28.03 vs. 41.77, p=.002 | 
		
			| Lynch et al. (2012) [81] | 100 | Canada | QG: 52.81 (8.91) C: 52.13 (8.56) | QG: 3M, 50F C: 1M, 46F | None | CFQ | Training over 3 half-days followed by weekly review/practice for 8 weeks Asked to practice 45-60 minutes per day Data collected at baseline, 6 months | N=53 | Wait-list, N=47 | Effects of CFQ on pain impact of fibromyalgia | 1) Pain (PI-NRS) 2) Fibromyalgia impact (FIQ) 3) Sleep (PSQI) | QG group, change from baseline at 6 months 1) -1.30 (2.09), p=.003, 38.4% saw clinically meaningful improvements, p=.02 2) -15.19 (19.86), p=.003, 56.2% saw clinically meaningful improvements, p=.02 3) -2.86 (3.47), p=.008, 49.3% saw clinically meaningful improvements, p=.01 | 
		
			| Wei et al. (2012) [115] # | 62 | China | QG: 29.39 (11.35), 15-58 C: 31.97 (12.15), 18-61   | QG: 25M, 6F C: 26M, 5F | none | BDJ | 3 months, twice a day, 15-20 minutes each session Data collected at baseline and 3 months   | N31 | N=31 | Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on the inflammation index of AS patients | 1) Pain (VAS) 2) Disease symptoms (ASAS 20)   | At 3 months, differences between QG and control 1) Pain: 1.68±0.60 vs 2.48±0.69, p<.05 2) Physical Function:2.13±0.7 vs 3.25±0.91, p<.05 Thoracic activity:4.3±1.32 vs 3.66±1.07, p<.05 Schober back flex: 4.69±1.39 vs 3.79±1.26, p<.05 | 
		
			| von Trott et al. (2009) [69] | 117   | Germany   | 76 (8), 55+ | 6M, 111F | NR | NR | 3 months, 24 sessions total, 45 minutes each of qigong or exercise therapy Data collected and baseline, 3 months, and 6 months | Qigong therapy, N=38 Exercise therapy, N=39 | Waiting list control, N=32 | Evaluate effectiveness of QG compared to exercise therapy and no treatment | 1) Average neck pain (VAS) 2) Neck pain and disability (NPAD) 3) Depression (ADS) | at 3 months, NS difference between QG and C (95% CI) 1) -11.0 (-24.0 to 2.1), p=.10 2) -6.7 (-15.4 to 2.1), p=.14 3) -1.0 (-5.2 to 3.1), p=.62   | 
		
			| Lansinger et al. (2007) [68] | 122   | Sweden | QG: 44.9 (12.3), 20-62 C: 42.8 (1.4), 21-65 | Q: 44F, 16M C: 42F, 20M | NR | Biyun | 3 months, 1-2 sessions a week, 1 hour (10-12 session total) Data collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months after intervention, and 12 months after intervention | N=60 | Exercise Therapy, n=62 | Effect on long-term neck pain   | 1) Pain (diary, VAS, NDI) | 1) No differences between groups for NP frequency, average NP in the most recent week, current NP, NP diary, and NDI. Patients improved immediately after intervention and at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups: above 50% for average NP in the most recent week, NP diary, NDI. and current NP (not for the time immediately after the intervention period). | 
		
			| Yang et al. (2005) [116] | 40 | Korea | QG: 72.58 (5.41) C: 72.67 (7.49) | QG: 13F, 6M C:19F, 2M | NR | EQT | 4 weeks, twice a week QG: 20 minutes receiving Qi C: lay in similar position but without Qi Data collected at baseline, week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, and week 6 | N=19 | Wait-list, N=21 | Effects of EQT on pain and mood states | 1) Pain (VAS) 2) Mood (POMS) | 1) pain intensity decreased linearly over time in QG group but not in control group. Significant between-group time improvement in QG versus control [F(5,190)=13.8, p<.0001, HF-e=.95] 2) positive mood: significant between-group time improvement in QG versus control [F(5,190)=22/1, p<.0001]; gradually increased in QG but decreased in control Negative mood: significant between-group time improvement in QG versus control [F(5,190)=10.9, p<.0001, HF-e=.69]. | 
		
			| Lee et al. (2001) [117] | 40 | Korea | QG: 73.05 (5.67) C: 72.20 (7.36) | QG: 14F, 6M C: 18F, 2M | NR | CSDB | 2 weeks, qi therapy twice a week for 10 minutes (total 4 times) Performed by certified Qi therapist Data collected at pre-therapy, one week, and two weeks | N=20 | N=20 Received general care in the same frequency | Assess effects of Qi therapy on reducing pain and enhancing mood states | 1) Pain level (VAS) 2) Mood states (POMS) | Significant group x time interaction and better scores in QG group vs. control 1) Positive mood: F(2, 76)=21.29, p=.0001; QG vs. Control: 9.25±4.13 vs. 3.35±2.85, p<.005 Negative mood: F(2,76)=2.93, p=.06; QG vs. Control: 16.90±11.15 vs. 25.20±16.61, NS 2) Pain: F(2,76)=9.379, p<.0001) QG group has lower pain than control at 2 weeks (p<.005) | 
		
			| Physical function/fitness | 
		
			| Wang et al. (2015) [118]# | 26 | China | 60+ QG: 66.79 (4.76) C: 65.59 (3.59) | QG: 7M, 6F C: 3M, 10F | None | YJJ | 12 weeks, QG practice 3 x a week, 1 hour each QG participants received 1 week of training prior to intervention Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks | N=13 | N=13   | Explore the effect of YJJ exercise on the prevention of Skeletal muscle weakness among senior adults | 1) Physical function (Knee extensor /flexor peak torque, peak torque/body weight, and average power) | At 12 weeks, QG vs. control: 1) Statistically significant improvement of extensor peak torque 60°/s (96.35±31.18 vs. 76.23±24.39), extensor peak torque/body weight 60°/s (141.03±33.3 vs. 113.05±33.3), extensor average power 60°/s (49.1±12.68 vs. 40.1±11.69), and extensor average power 180°/s (49.63±16.65 vs. 36.75±13.8) among the intervention group, p<.05 | 
		
			| Xiao and Zhuang (2015) [62] | 100 | China | QG: 68.17 (2.27) C: 66.52 (2.13) | QG: 68.75%M C: 70.83%M | None | BDJ | Four 45-min sessions/week, daily walking 30 min for 6 months Data collected at enrollment, discharge from rehab program and 6 months | N=50 | Independent walking, N=50 | Investigate effectiveness of BDJ on symptoms related to gait, functional mobility and sleep | 1) Fatigue (UPDRS) 2) Functional mobility (BBS, 6MWT, TUG) 3) Sleep (PDSS) 4) Gait (Vicon 512 motion capture system, Freezing of Gait) | Across 6 months, comparing QG and control: 1) significant group × time interactions, with the QG showing a significant decrease in impairment measured by the UPDRS-III score (P = 0.038). 2) significant group × time interactions, with the QG showing greater improvements in the BBS (P = 0.037) and 6MW (P = 0.045), and greater decrease in the TUG (P = 0.028) 3) significant group x time interactions, with QG showing significant decrease in PDSS-2 total score (p=.045) 4)  significant group × time interactions, with the QG showing a significant increase in the gait speed (p=.02) | 
		
			| Xiao and Zhuang (2015) [61] | 126 | China | 71.1 (2.7), 65-85 QG: 72.2 (1.7) C: 70.9 (1.4) | QG: 82.1% M C: 93.6%M | None | LQG | 6 months, four 45 minute sessions per week Data collected at baseline and 6 months | N=63 | 30 min walk daily, N=63 | Investigate effectiveness of LQG in promoting physical and psychosocial function in individuals with COPD | 1) Functional capacity (6MWT) 2) General health (SF-36) | 1) Significant group by time interactions, with the QG group showing greater improvements on the 6MW (p=.04) over the 6-month study period than controls, and significant improvement for QG group between baseline and 6 months (301.0±10.9 vs. 321.5±15.5, p=.02) 2) Non-significant group by time interactions between QG and control over 6 months (p=.54), and significant improvement for QG group (43.9±3.5 vs. 51.8±5.6, p<.001) | 
		
			| Li et al. (2014) [119] | 110 | China | 34.2 (14.6), 20-59 QG: 35.5 C: 32.9 | QG: 19M, 39F C: 17M, 38F | NR | BDJ | 16 weeks, QG 3 times or more each week, 30–60 minutes each time QG training 2 weeks prior to intervention |  N=55     | Wait-list N=55 | Effects of BDJ on promoting physical fitness | 1) Physical function (SR, ES, aerobic endurance) | 1) SR: better physical fitness posttest-pretest scores, t=3.46, p=.001 ES: worse time but NS Aerobic endurance: improved but NS | 
		
			| Amano et al. (2013) [79] | 21 | US | TC: 64 (13) QG: 68 (7) | TC: 7M, 5F C: 7M, 2F | None | NR | 16 weeks, 2x week, 60 mins/session for both TC and QG | Tai Chi (Yang-style), N=12 | QG meditation, N=9 | Impact of Tai Chi vs. qigong on gait and gait performance | 1) Gait initiation (center-of-pressure measures) 2) Gait performance (cadence, gait velocity, step length, step duration, swing time, double lib support time, gait asymmetry) 3) Parkinsonian disabilities (UPDRS-III) | 1) significantly shifted their COP more toward the initial swing limb after the 16-week period when compared to the TC group (p<0.01, η2=0.39). 2) no significant difference between groups in any variables (ps>.05) 3) no significant difference between groups (ps>.05)   | 
		
			| Chan et al. (2011) [70] | 206 | HK | 73, 55-88 | TCQ: 69M, 1F   Exercise: 61M, 8F   C: 58M, 9F | None | 13 form TCQ | 3 months TCQ: Two 60-min sessions per week Exercise: pursed lip and diaphragmatic breathing Data collected at baseline and 3 months   | TCQ, N=70 Exercise, N=69   | Control, N=67 | Evaluate the effectiveness of TCQ in enhancing respiratory functions and activity tolerance in individuals with COPD | 1) Lung functions: Pre-broncholator spirometry 2) 6-min walk test 3) Dyspnoea and fatigue: Borg scale 4) Oxygen saturation | Results of RANCOVA demonstrated significant differences between baseline and 3 months, with TCQ group showing greatest improvements. 1) Forced volume capacity (FVC): 1.97±0.62 vs. 2.10±0.62 liters (p= .002), Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1): 0.89±0.38 vs. 0.96±0.39 liters (p< .001) 2) 6MWT: 297.91 ±68.53 vs. 33.074±61.86 meters (p< .001) 3) NS 4) NS | 
		
			| Maddali et al. (2011) [120] | 30 | Italy | G1: 56.56 (9.1) G2: 57.91 (13.50) | NR | NR | Dan tien, Zhang zhuang, Flying Pheonix | 7 weeks, 2 sessions/week for first three weeks, 1 session/week for weeks 4-7 (total 10 sessions) Cross-over design with 1 week interval Ressegaier Method session is 60 min QG is 45 min Data collected at baseline, week 7 (end intervention 1), week 15 (end intervention 2), week 27 | Ressegaier Method, N=15 QG, N=15 | None | Evaluate Ressegaier method and QG in fibromyalgia rehabilitation | 1) disability (FIQ) 2) Pain (NRS) 3) Psychological outcomes (HADS)   | Comparing baseline and week 7 for QG first group (G2) 1) less disability: 64.58±16.54 vs. 43.16±21.86, p<.05 2) less pain: 7.82±0.89 vs. 3.20±1.60, p<.001 3) less anxiety: 9.56±5.00 vs. 5.33±2.60, p<.001 Less depressive symptoms: 7.89±6.09 vs. 3.56±4.64, p<.001   Comparing baseline to week 27 (after both Ressegaier Method, QG, and follow up time) 1) G1 less disability: 66.05±13.50 vs. 44.72±16.67, p<.001 G2 less disability: 64.58±16.54 vs. 44.40±28.41, p<.05 2) G1 less pain: 7.58±0.89 vs. 3.51±0.65, p<.001 G2 less pain: 7.82±0.89 vs. 3.20±1.60, p<.001 3) G1 less anxiety: 8.91±2.51 vs. 5.64±3.32, p<.001 G1 less depressive symptoms: 9.45±2.88 vs. 6.64±3.01, p<.001 G2 less anxiety: 9.56±5.00 vs. 5.33±2.29, p<.001 G2 less depressive symptoms: 7.89±6.09 vs. 3.78±4.52, p<.001 | 
		
			| Chen et al. (2008) [55] | 112 | US | H1: 63.9 (9.7) H2: 58.8 (7.0) C: 62.9 (9.2) | H1: 14M, 31F H2: 3M, 9F C: 13M, 36F | Experience with some CAM therapies, none with EQT | EQT | 3 weeks, 5-6 sessions. Each healer had a different technique H1: 4-7 minutes H2: 5-10 minutes C: Chinese man without experience mimicked EQT movements Data collected at baseline, 3 weeks, and 3 months | H1: N=45 H2: n=12 | Sham treatment, N=52 | Effects of EQT on osteoarthritis pain and functional | 1) Osteoarthritis pain and function (WOMAC) | 1) No difference between sham and healer 1 Difference between sham group and healer 2 for pain (p<.01), functionality (<.01) and total WOMAC scores (p<.01) at 3 month follow up Belief in CAM therapy was a significant covariate in predicting treatment outcome immediately after treatment (p<.05) | 
		
			| Pippa et al. (2007) [121] | 43 | Italy | 68 (8) | 30M, 13F | NR | NR | 16 weeks of intervention QG: two 90-minute training sessions per week, 32 total Follow-up 16 weeks after intervention | N=22 | Wait-list, n=21 | Effects of QG on functional capacity | 1) Physical function (6MWT) | 1) Significant improvement in QG group versus control group at two time points: pre-training versus post-training (p<.001) and pre-training and follow-up (p=.008) | 
		
			| Burini et al. (2006) [122]   | 26 | Italy | 65.2 (6.5) | 9M, 17F | NR | NR | Crossover design (total 22 weeks): 7 weeks, 20 sessions of 50 min, 3 days weekly 8 weeks of no treatment 7 weeks, 20 sessions of 50 min, 3 days weekly of remaining treatment Data collected at baseline, after first intervention, after no treatment, after second treatment | QG, N=15 Aerobic Training sessions, N=11 | None | Effects of QG versus aerobic training in subjects with Parkinson’s   | 1) Impairment from Parkinson’s (UPDRS) 2) Depression (BDS) 3) Physical function (6MWT) | 1-2) All changes after QG training were not significant, p>0.05 3) Group x time differences significant: F=5.4, p=.002 Aerobic training group showed significant improvements t=-2.7, p=.005, while QG group changes were not significant | 
		
			| Schmitz‐Hübsch et al. (2006) [58] | 56 | Germany | QG: 64 (8) C: 63 (8) | QG: 24M, 8F C: 19M, 5F | None | “Frolic of the crane”, sitting BDJ | 24 weeks (Two courses of 8 weeks with an 8-week pause in between), 90 minutes each, 16 visits total, 1X/week Encouraged to practice at home Data collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months | N=32 | N=24 | Evaluate effects of QG on motor symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease | 1) Motor symptoms (UPDRS-III) 2) Quality of life (PDQ-39) 3) Depression (MADRS)   | 1) The proportion of patients who improved in UPDRS- III, was significantly greater in QG group at 3 months (P=0.0080), while at 6 months (P =0.0503) and 12 months (P= 0.635) was not significant. 2) no significant between-group differences, data not reported 3) The prevalence of mild or moderate depression was 48% in the QG group and 41% in the control group at baseline compared with 33% in both groups at 6 months Proportions of patients using antidepressants were 19% (QG) and 24% (control) at baseline but shifted to 16% (QG) and 32% (control) at 12-month follow-up | 
		
			| Stenlund et al. (2005) [123] | 95 | Sweden | QG: 77 (3), 73-92 C: 78 (3), 73-84 | 66M, 29F | NR | TC and medicinal QG | 12 weeks, 60 min QG and 120 min of discussion on various themes, meeting weekly | N=48 | Usual Care (n=47) | Effect of QG on physical ability on subjects with coronary artery disease | 1) Physical function (Perceived activity level, tandem standing, right/left one-leg stance, right/left co-ordination, climb boxes | Significant improvement for QG compared to Control group in self-estimated level of physical activity (P = 0.011), and their performance in the one-leg stance test for the right leg (P = 0.029), co-ordination (P = 0.021) and the box-climbing test for right leg (P= 0.035) | 
		
			| Astin et al. (2003) [124] | 128 | US | 18-70 47.7 (10.6) | QG: 1M, 63F C: 64F | NR | Mindfulness meditation with QG movement | 8 weeks, 1x/week, 150 minutes (90 min mindfulness, 60 min Qigong) Data collected at baseline, 8 weeks, 14 weeks, and 24 weeks | N=64 | Education and support group, N=64 | Test benefits of a mind-body intervention for individuals with fibromyalgia | 1) Fibromyalgia impact (FIQ) 2) Pain (SF-36) 3) Depression (BDI) | No significant differences between groups at 24 weeks Baseline vs. 24 weeks, QG improvement: 1) 57.8±10.8 vs. 46.4±19.5, p<.01 2) 32.3±14.4 vs. 41.6±22.2, p<.05 3) 16.7±7.4 vs. 12.3±7.6, p<.001 | 
		
			| Psychological | 
		
			| Hsieh et al. (2015) [77] | 66 | Taiwan | QG: 81.21 (6.24) C: 83.42 (7.87) | QG: 13M, 20F C: 18M, 15F | NR | LQG | 4 weeks, twice a week, 60 min led by LQG practitioner Data collected at baseline week 4 | N=33 | N=33 | Determine psychological and physiological effects of LQG on elderly in an institutionalized setting | 1) Memory (MMSE) 2) Mood (Faces Scale) 3) Depression (GDS) 4) Cortisol levels | Between baseline and week 4, QG showed: 1) improved Mini-Mental State Examination scores (Z = −2.28; p<.05), NS difference with control (Z=-.27, p=.79) 2)  improved mood states (Z = −4.47; p<.001), significant difference with control (Z=5.87, p<.001) 3) decreased depression scores (Z = 3.79; p<.001), significant difference with control (Z=3.27, p=.001) 4) NS change in cortisol (Z=-.143, p=.15), significant difference with control (Z=3.02, p=.003) | 
		
			| Chen et al. (2013) [76] | 96 | China | QG: 45.3 (6.3), 29-58 C: 44.7 (9.7), 35-62 | 96F | None | Guolin (walking qigong) | 5-6 weeks, five 40-minute qigong classes Data collected at baseline, middle of radiotherapy, last week of radiotherapy, 1 month post radiotherapy, and 3 months post radiotherapy | N=49 | Wait-list control, N=47 | Examine QG effects on QoL on women with breast cancer during radiotherapy | 1) Depression (CES-D) 2) Fatigue (BFI) 3) Sleep (PSQI) 4) QoL (FACT-G) 5) Cortisol | 1) Significant group differences in depression over time (F[3,281] = 2.62; P =.05). QG depression score at baseline vs. 3 months post-radiotherapy: 13.1±8.9 vs. 9.6±6.6 Control depression score at baseline vs. 3 months post-radiotherapy: 12.2±9.2 vs. 11.2±9.8 2-5) No significant differences between QG and Control groups. | 
		
			| Tsang et al. (2013) [125] | 116 | HK | QG: 83.3 (6.3) C: 84.9 (6.0) | QG: 14M, 47F C: 15M, 40F | NR | Yan Chai Yi Jin Ten-Section Brocades | 12 weeks, two 60 minute sessions per week Data collected at baseline, week 6, 12 weeks, and 20 weeks | N=61 | Newspaper reading group, n=55 | Effectiveness of QG for improving psychosocial, cognitive, physical, and physiological functioning in frail older adults | 1) Psychological (GDS and PBQ) 2) Cognitive function (LOTCA-G) 3) Physical function (Handgrip strength) 4) Physiological functioning (HR, BP) | Group x time interaction showing effectiveness of QG: 1) NS interaction on depression [F(2,228)=1.16, p=.32] Significant interaction on overall health status [F(1,57)=15.26, p=.0001] 2) only significant interaction effect for thinking operations [F(2, 228)=4.05, p=.02] 3) NS interaction in handgrip strength [left: p=.70, right: p=.58] 4) significant effects on resting heart rate [F(2,228)=3.14, p=.045], but not on SBP (p=.22) or DBP (p=.88)   After intervention compared to baseline, QG group showed 1) Significant reduction of depressive symptoms [F=11.68, p<.025] | 
		
			| Tsang et al. (2013) [78] | 37 | HK | QG: 80 (7) C: 81 (9) | QG: 5M, 16F C: 7M, 10F | NR | BDJ | 12 weeks, three 45 min sessions per week Data collected at baseline, week 6, week 12, week 16, week 24 | N=21 | Newspapers reading, N=17 | Examine psychological, physical and neurophysiological effects of a QG exercise program on depressed elders | 1) Depression (GDS) 2) Physical (grip strength) 3) Neurophysiological (cortisol) | 1) significant group x time effects on GDS [F(2,35)=5.72; p=.007] QG had higher response and remission rates than the comparison group concerning depression (43% vs. 6%, 24% vs. 6%, respectively; ps<.01) 2) QG: improvement for right hand by 18%, p=.034. Improvement for left hand by 26%, p=.164 3) QG: Non-significant decreasing trend of cortisol level by 18.5% | 
		
			| Chow et al. (2012) [126] | 65 | HK | 21-64 QG:43.79 (10.37) C: 44.66 (11.86) | QG: 12M, 22F C: 11M, 23F | None | Chan Mi gong | 12 weeks, Weekly 90 min practice with instructor for first 8 weeks, then 4 weeks of home practice Data collected in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12 | N=34 | Wait-list, N=31 | Investigate whether QG helps to reduce stress and anxiety   | 1) Mood States (DASS-21) 2) QoL (ChQOL) | Between group comparisons between week 1 and week 12, QG vs. Control: 1) significant differences in overall psychological wellbeing (F[1,63]=4.26, p.043, n2=.063) 2) significant differences in QoL (F[1,63]=6.04, p=.017, n2=.088)   Between week 1 and week 12, QG experienced: 1) significant decrease in stress (F[1,63]=5.77, p=.019) and anxiety (F[1,63]=4.72, p=.034) 2) significant increase in overall QoL (F[1,63]=6.04, p=.017) | 
		
			| Chan et al. (2011) [75] | 40 | HK | 25-64 QG: 49.65 (7.27) C: 48.92 (8.11) | QG: 7M, 13F C: 7M, 13F | NR | DMBI | 4 weeks, weekly 90-min sessions Data collected at baseline and 4 weeks | N=20 | Group CBT, N=20 | Effectiveness of a short-term mind-body intervention program on improving depressive mood | 1) Depression (BDI-II) | 1) QG: significant reduction in depressive mood after treatment [baseline = 14, SD = 10.42; post-test =6.30, SD = 6.67; t(19) = 3.82, p=.001; effect size (Cohen’s d) = 0.85] Extent of reduction for QG vs. CBT was significantly greater (p<.05) | 
		
			| Johansson et al. (2011) [56] | 59 | Sweden | 50.8 (12.9) | 51 F, 8M | Average 4.8±3.1 years of practice | Jichu Gong | 30-min practice Control: listened to a 30 min lecture Data collected at baseline and after 30 min exercise | N=28 | Lecture on Chinese medicine, N=31 | Investigate acute psychological effects of QG among regular QG exercisers | 1) Depression (POMS) 2) Anxiety (STAI) 3) Anger (POMS) 4) Fatigue (POMS) | Time x group interactions: 1) Depression: F(1, 57) = 10.61, h2 =.16, power=.89, p<.002 2) Anxiety: F(1, 57) = 7.67, h2 =.12, power= .78, p < .008 3) Anger: F(1, 57) = 8.41, h2 =.13, power=.81, p <.0005 4) Fatigue: F(1, 57)=18.06, h2 = .24, power= .99, p< .0005   Changes in QG group after exercise: 1) lower depression, F(1, 57)=17.10, h2 = .23, power= .98, p< .0005 2) lower anxiety, F(1, 57)=29.42, h2 =.34, power=1.0, p<.0005 3) no significant changes 4) lower fatigue, F(1, 57)=11.21, h2 = .16, power= .91, p<.001 | 
		
			| Stenlund et al. (2009) [127] | 82 | Sweden | 25-65 QG: 43.8 (9.7) C: 44.7 (8.6) | QG: 7M, 34F C: 7M, 34F | NR | NR | 12 weeks, twice a week, 1 hour group practice plus home practice Data collected at baseline and 12 weeks | N=41 | Usual care, N=41 | Evaluate efficacy of QG in rehabilitation for patients with burnout | 1) Burnout (SMBQ)   | 1) At 12 weeks, NS difference between groups, p=.70 QG: significantly lower median score after program, 5.8 (5.0-6.0) vs. 5.4 (4.4-5.8), p<.001 C: significantly lower median score after program, 5.8 (4.8-6.2) vs. 5.0 (4.5-5.7), p<.001 | 
		
			| Griffith et al. (2008) [128] | 37 | US | QG: 52 (9) C: 50 (10) | QG: 12F, 4M C: 17F, 5M | None | BDJ | 6 weeks, twice a week, 1 hour class Asked to practice for 30 min on non-class days Data collected at baseline and 6 weeks | N=16 | Wait-list, control, N=21 | Investigate effectiveness of QG in reducing stress in hospital staff | 1) Stress (PSS) 2) QoL (SF-36) 3) Pain (VAS) | 1) Significant difference in reduction of perceived stress over time between QG and Control (t=-.2458, p=.02) QG: decreased mean=-4.5±6.6 2) Significant difference in social functioning score over time between QG and control (t=2.035, p=.05) 3) NS difference in reduction of pain over time between QG and Control (t=-1.097, p=.28) | 
		
			| Haak and Scott (2008) [129] | 57 | Sweden | 27-73 QG: 54.0 (9.4) C: 53.4 (8.0) | 57F | 85% have used some form of CAM | Lotus method (He Hua QG) EQT | 7 weeks, 9 group session (Total 11.5 hours) Encouraged to practice twice a day for 20 minutes Received EQT twice during intervention Data collected at baseline, 7 weeks, and 4 months | N=29 | Wait-list, N=28 At 4 month follow up, control had received intervention | Evaluate the effects of QG on pain, quality of sleep, psychological health, work status, and use of medication | 1) Anxiety (STAI) 2) Depression (BDI) 3) QoL (WHOQOL-BREF) 4) Pain (VNS) | Group x time differences between intervention and control at baseline to 7 weeks 1) anxiety: F(1,55)=5.81, p<.05 2) depression: F(1,55)=6.44, p<.01 3) quality of life: F(1,55)=4.03, p<.05 4)intensity of pain: F(1,55)=5.34, p<.05   Time interaction of combined (N=57) group changes after intervention (baseline, 7 weeks, 4 months) 1) decreased anxiety: F time=4.90, p<.01 2) decreased depressive symptoms: F time=6.80, p<.01 3) increased quality of life: F time=6.24, p<.01 4) decreased intensity of pain: F time=7.88, p<.001 | 
		
			| Tsang et al. (2006) [130]     | 82   | HK | QG: 82.11 (7.19) C: 82.74 (6.83) | QG: 10M, 28F C: 6M, 28F | NR | BDJ | 16 weeks, 3 days a week, 30-45 min each Data collected at baseline, 8 weeks, and 16 weeks | N=48 | Newspaper Reading group of similar intensity, N=34 | Understand the psycho-social effects of QG on elderly persons with depression | 1) Depression (GDS) 2) Self-efficacy (CGSS)     | Group x time interaction among the two groups at five different time points: 1) Depression [F(4, 77)=2.619, p=0.041], 2) Self-efficacy [F(4, 77)=11.693, p<0.001]   After practicing QG: 1) improvement in depression, significance not reported 2) improvement in self-efficacy, significance not reported | 
		
			| Tsang et al. (2003) [131] | 50   | HK | G: 72.9 (9.5)   C: 76.3 (8.4) | QG: 9M, 15F C: 17M, 9F | NR | BDJ | 12 weeks, 2 days/week, 60 min each Data collected at baseline, midway, and post-program | N=24 | Basic Rehabilitation activities, N=26 | Assess if BDJ improves biopsychosocial health of participants | 1) Depression (GDS) 2) Perceived benefit (PBQ) | 1) repeated measures ANOVA of two groups is not significant [F(2, 39)=2.032, p=.145] 2) QG group has perceived improvement in physical health [19.36±2.79, t(21)=7.34, p<.001], overall ADL [14.75±2.12, t(7)=3.67, p=.008], psychological health [26.73±2.91, t(21)=9.22, p<.001], social relationship [11.05±1.94, t(21)=4.95, p<.001], and health in general [7.50±1.06, t(21)=6.65, p<.001] | 
		
			| Quality of Life | 
		
			| Oh et al. (2014) [72] | 27 | AU | QG: 56.9 (12.1) C: 57.8 (10.8) | 27F | None | MQ | 10 weeks, once a week, 60 min group supervised class Encouraged to practice at home for 30 min each day Data collected at baseline, week 5, and week 10 | N=14 | Meditation, N=13 | Examine the feasibility, safety, and effects of MQ in improving QoL in women with metastatic breast cancer | 1) QoL (FACT-B) 2) Fatigue (FACT-F) 3) Perceived stress (PSS) 4) Neuropathic symptoms (FACT/ GOG-NTX) | At 10 weeks: 1) No significant differences between groups (p=0.84) 2) No significant differences between groups (p=0.71) 3) No significant differences between groups (p=0.52) 4) Significant group difference (0=0.014), QG improved while control deteriorated | 
		
			| Lin et al. (2012) [132]# | 60 | China | 50-85 QG: 66.47 (8.26) C: 64.9 (8.87)   | QG: 24M, 6F C: 22M, 8F | None | BDJ | 23 weeks Data collected at baseline, mid-intervention, and 23 weeks | N=30       | N=30   | Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on quality of life of patients after Coronary artery bypass grafting | 1) QoL (QOLS) 2) Functional status (SAQ) | QG compared to Control group 1) improvement of QoL, p<.05 2) improvement of functional status, p<.05 | 
		
			| Oh et al. (2010) [71] | 162 | Australia | 31-86 QG: 60.1 (11.7) C: 59.9 (11.3) | QG: 48F, 31M C: 45F, 38M | None | MQ | 10 weeks, two supervised 90-min sessions per week. Participants encouraged practice at home every day for at least 39 min Data collected | N=79 | Usual care, N=83 | Evaluate use of MQ compared with usual care to improve quality of life of cancer patients | 1) QoL (FACT-G) 2) Fatigue (FACT-F) 3) Mood (POMS) 4) Inflammation (CRP) | At 10 weeks, QG compared to C (controlling for gender, age, status of cancer treatment, week 0 baseline scores, and intervention status) 1) improved overall QoL, mean difference=9.00 (CI, 5.62 to 12.36), p<.001 2) improved fatigue score, mean difference=5.70 (CI, 3.32 to 8.09), p<.001 3) improved total mood status, mean difference=-10.64 (CI, -19.81 to -1.47), p=.02 4) less inflammation, mean difference=-23.17 (CI, -37.08 to -9.26), p=.04 | 
		
			| Oh et al. (2008) [73] | 30 | Australia | 54 (9), 35-75   | QG: 3M, 12F   C: 3M, 12F | None | MQ | 8 weeks, once or twice a week, 90 mn class (15 min discussion, 30 min stretching and movement, 15 min seated movement, 30 min breathing) Recommended practice at home very day for at least 1 hour Data collected at baseline and week 8 | N=15 | Usual care, N=15 | Examine impact of MQ for improving QoL, symptoms, side effects, and longevity | 1) QoL (ERORTC QLQ-C 30) 2) Symptoms (ERORTC QLQ-C 30) 3) inflammation (CRP) | No significant differences between groups due to small sample size For QG group changes from baseline to week 8 1) improvement in QoL (10.4, p=.005) 2) No significant changes in fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite, constipation, or diarrhea ps>.05 3) NS increase in CRP score +1.7 | 
		
			| Wang et al. (2007) [60] # | 200 | China | Male: 61-65 QG: 63 (2.7) C: 62.4 (2.6)   Female: 56-60 QG: 57.8 (2.6) C: 56.9 (3.0) | QG: 60M, 60F C: 40M, 40F | None | BDJ | 6 months, 1 hour every day Data collected at baseline and 6 months     | N=120     | N=80 | explore the effect of BDJ exercise on quality of life of senior people. | 1) QoL (SF-36) | Outcome were reported based on gender After 6 months, QG vs. control groups: 1) Male: SF-36 total: 78.4±14 vs. 67.7±10, p<.05 Female: SF-36 total: 81.9±13 vs. 76.1±12, p<.05 | 
		
			| Sleep | 
		
			| Liao et al. (2015) [133] | 131 | China | QG: 31.1 (10.46) C: 31.6 (10.74) | QG: 10M, 52F C: 23M, 44F | NR | BDJ | 6 weeks, exercised 30 minutes 2x a day Data collected at baseline, week 4, week 6, week 12, and week 18 | N=64 | N=67 | Observe effect of BDJ on fatigue | 1) Fatigue (FSAS) | From baseline to end of week 18 1) NS group x time interaction, p=.66 Significant difference over time: F=34.855, p<.001 Significant difference between groups: F=27.375, p<.001 QG improved between baseline and 18th week: 41.50±12.36 vs. 12.28±10.46 | 
		
			| Larkey et al. (2014) [134] | 87 | US | 40-75 QG: 57.7 (8.94) C: 59.8 (8.93) | 87F | None | QG/ TCE | 12 weeks, 60 min sessions meeting 2x a week for the first 2 weeks and then once a week for the remainder Asked to practice at home at least 30 min a day, 5 days per week Data collected at baseline, post-intervention, 3 months later | N=45 | Sham Qigong N=42 | Compare QG/TCE with SQG on fatigue and other symptoms among breast cancer survivors | 1) Fatigue (FSI) 2) Depression (BDI) 3) Sleep (PSQI) | 1) Fatigue difference between intervention group and time (p=0.0116). The decrease in the FSI was significantly greater for the QG/TCE intervention at both the post-intervention (p=0.005) and 3-month follow-up (p=0.024) 2) No statistically significant interactions between groups, p=.94; showed significant decreases across time for QG/TCE and SQG (p<.001) 3) No statistically significant interactions between groups, p=.27; showed significant decreases across time for QG/TCE and SQG (p<.05) | 
		
			| Li and Wang (2014) [135] # | 40 | China | QG: 53.60, 41-69 C: 51.4 (9.2), 39-70 | QG: 11M, 9F C: 8M, 12F | none | BDJ | 4 weeks, practice once a day, 30 min each Data collected at baseline and 4 weeks | N=20 | N=20 | Explore the effect of BDJ exercise on insomnia among type 2 diabetes | 1) Sleep (PSQI) | 1) After 1 month, NS difference between QG and control groups, however there is a trend of improvement from baseline to 1 month for QG group (8.43±4.48 vs. 9.03±4.61)   | 
		
			| Chan et al. (2012) [136] | 50 | HK | 28-62 QG: 47.06 (9.54) CBT: 47.39 (6.63) WL: 45.44 (8.25) | QG: 2M, 15F CBT: 5M, 13F C: 4M, 12F   | NR | DMBI | 10 weeks, one weekly 90 min sessions for either DMBI or CBT Data collected at baseline and 10 weeks | Two groups: 1) QG, N=17 2) CBT, N=18 | Wait-list, N=16 | Compare the effect of DMBI vs. CBT on improving sleep problems of patients with depression | 1) sleep items (HRSD) 2) Total sleep time (hours) 3) Sleep onset latency (min) 4) Wake time after sleep onset (min) | For QG group, mean difference between baseline and 10 weeks: 1) -1.50 (1.51), p<.01 2) 0.79 (1.64), p=.03 3) -9.81 (21.25), p=.04 4) -12.10 (26.34), p=.09 For CBT and Control, no significant differences in pre- and post- treatment testing of sleep | 
		
			| Chen et al. (2012) [137] | 56   | Taiwan | 71.75 (8.13) QG: 70.48 (7.90) C: 72.96 (8.30) | QG: 17F, 10M C: 19F, 9M | None within 6 months | BDJ | 12 weeks, 30-min home-based exercise, thrice a week. Data collected at baseline, week 4, week 8, and week 12 | N=28 | N=28 | Explore effectiveness of BDJ on sleep quality in Taiwanese elderly | 1) Sleep quality (PSQI) | 1) QG: significant improvement in their overall sleep quality (F = 26.04, p<.001) After 12 weeks, mean scores of sleep quality were significantly improved in the exercise group over the control group in overall sleep quality (β = -5.10, p<.001) |