A Synthesized Model for Applying Stress Management and Biofeedback Interventions in Research Utilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Manyat Ruchiwit; Sararud Vuthiarpa; Kampol Ruchiwit; Kasorn Muijeen; Kanjanee Phanphairoj

doi:10.2174/0117450179276691231229071003

A Synthesized Model for Applying Stress Management and Biofeedback Interventions in Research Utilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2024 Feb 28:20:e17450179276691. doi: 10.2174/0117450179276691231229071003. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Manyat Ruchiwit¹, Sararud Vuthiarpa¹, Kampol Ruchiwit², Kasorn Muijeen³, Kanjanee Phanphairoj⁴

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Nursing, Rattana Bundit University, Pathumthani, Thailand.
² Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand.
³ Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand.
⁴ Faculty of Nursing, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

PMID: 38660573
PMCID: PMC11037511
DOI: 10.2174/0117450179276691231229071003

Abstract

Background: Stress management and biofeedback interventions have been shown to be effective in improving mental and physical health outcomes. However, previous research studies and synthesized models for applying these interventions in research utilization are insufficient.

Objective: This study aimed to synthesize a model for applying stress management and biofeedback interventions in research utilization.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.Multiple studies were used to assess the effectiveness of applying stress management and biofeedback interventions published from 2017 to 2023. The process included identifying the research questions, conducting a comprehensive literature search, assessing study quality, extracting data, synthesizing the data, analyzing and interpreting the findings, drawing conclusions, and making recommendations.

Results: The results indicated a significant mean effect size without evidence of publication bias. The effect sizes of the subgroups among the study variables were not significantly different [Q = 4.02, p = .26]. However, there were significant differences regarding the mean effect sizes among the studies [Q = 63.59, p < .001] and also in terms of the test of subgroups among the participants [Q = 8.49, p = .04].

Conclusion: The results emphasize the importance of evidence-based practice and highlight the need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of interventions. The proposed model was supported by related theories and research studies in order to ensure the robustness and reliability to guide practice and future research in the field of biofeedback interventions. By following this model, researchers and practitioners can ensure that stress management and biofeedback interventions are evidence-based and are effective in improving mental and physical health outcomes.

Keywords: Biofeedback interventions; Mental health; Meta-analysis; Research utilization; Stress management; Systematic review.

Publication types

Review