Effectiveness of mind–body therapies for sleep disturbance in older adults: a network meta-analysis

Background and Objectives: Mind–body therapies are increasingly used to improve sleep quality in older adults with sleep disturbance. Although previous studies have explored the effects of mind–body therapies, it remains necessary to determine which interventions are most effective and comprehensively evaluate their comparative effects. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic search across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from their inception until December 20, 2025. To analyze and visualize the results, we used the “BUGSnet” and “JAGS” packages within the R statistical software. Employing a random-effects model, we calculated effect sizes as mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for continuous outcomes. Furthermore, risk of bias in included trials was evaluated using the Risk of Bias tool. Results: Out of 3,792 studies screened, 45 studies involving 3,568 participants were included in the final analysis. The findings revealed that compared to control, meditation (MD: −3.49; 95% CrI: −4.92 to −2.09), yoga (MD: −2.40; 95% CrI: −4.55 to −0.27), qigong (MD: −2.21, 95% CrI: −4.01 to −0.42), and tai chi (MD: −1.87, 95% CrI: −2.99 to −0.77) were associated with improvements in sleep quality. When compared with sleep hygiene education, meditation (MD: −2.87, 95% CrI: −4.45 to −1.30) demonstrated superior efficacy. Discussion and Implications: Meditation, yoga, tai chi, and qigong all conferred improvements in subjective sleep quality in older adults with sleep disturbance, with meditation showing the highest probability of being ranked best in the primary analysis. © The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights)