Mind-Body Therapies for Multimorbidity: A Bibliometric Analysis and Evidence Map.

Objectives

Multimorbidity is a growing global health challenge, yet the role of mind-body therapies in addressing its complex health burdens remains insufficiently characterised. This study aimed to map the research landscape and clinical evidence structure of mind-body therapies for multimorbidity.

Methods

Bibliometric analysis integrated with evidence mapping was conducted using English-language publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, and Embase from January 2004 to July 2026. CiteSpace and R were used to construct knowledge networks, visualise temporal, geographical, collaborative, and thematic patterns, and generate evidence maps. Clinical studies were coded according to intervention type, comparator, comorbidity pattern, outcome domain, and reported outcome direction.

Results

Of 6441 records identified, 119 publications were retained for bibliometric analysis and 77 clinical studies for evidence mapping. Publication activity increased after 2017 but remained geographically concentrated, with limited international collaboration. Keyword, clustering, timeline, and co-citation analyses showed sustained research attention to chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, anxiety disorders, mindfulness-based approaches, and biofeedback or neurofeedback. The evidence map covered 53 condition combinations, most of which were represented by only one clinical study. Mindfulness-based interventions were the most frequently studied approach (31.2%), followed by multicomponent mind-body interventions. Randomised controlled designs represented only a minority of the clinical evidence, and many studies had no comparator. Psychological outcomes and clinical symptoms were commonly assessed, although outcome categories were not mutually exclusive and findings varied across studies.

Conclusions

Research on mind-body therapies for multimorbidity is expanding, but the evidence remains heterogeneous across condition combinations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Publication frequency and bibliometric prominence do not establish comparative effectiveness. Future studies should include broader condition combinations, use robust comparative designs, and report standardised outcomes and safety data.