Abstract
Research on yoga is witnessing an unprecedented proliferation currently, partly because of great interest in yoga's health utility. However, yoga research does not seem to be sufficiently public health oriented, or its quality corresponding to its quantity. Yoga research is falling short to enable key stakeholders like end users, prescribers, and payers to meaningfully, confidently, and fruitfully answer the questions like: Is it generalizable? Is it standardizable? Which yoga style should be used/recommended/paid for? Or will it be worth the money? Therefore, it is important to examine the alignment to purpose or value of yoga research from a public health point of view so as to make it more practical. The issues such as lack of clear definition of yoga, wide variation in its dosage, cacophony of lineage-based styles, no data about comparative effectiveness between the yoga components, confounders and biases clouding the evidence regarding its benefits, too little data on long-term adherence, equivocal results about its cost effectiveness, discussions lacking embrace of better methods in research, and absence of a theory of yoga are examined. This is not a detailed discussion of every issue yoga research faces, but a high-level overview of those that have direct practical bearing. In the end, a few pragmatic approaches are offered. The article suggests that yoga-component analysis, development of a theory of yoga, adoption of a health-aligned functional typology of yoga, development and testing of a simple universal basic prototype of yoga intervention, emphasis on research about long-term adherence, and discouragement for mere proof of concept research might make yoga research serve the stakeholders better. It urges the research community to practice "context cognizant scholarship" to disentangle health compatible yoga from its historical-cultural-social body before examining it for health or medical application.