Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May 24:14:1140880.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1140880. eCollection 2023.

Implementing biofeedback treatment in a psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic inpatient unit: a mixed methods evaluation of acceptance, satisfaction, and feasibility

Affiliations

Implementing biofeedback treatment in a psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic inpatient unit: a mixed methods evaluation of acceptance, satisfaction, and feasibility

Kira Schmidt et al. Front Psychiatry. .

Abstract

Introduction: Feedback-based therapies such as biofeedback have a benefit in patients with mental health disorders. While biofeedback is heavily researched in outpatient settings, it has been rarely investigated in psychosomatic inpatient settings. The implementation of an additional treatment option in inpatient settings holds special requirements. The aim of this pilot study is the evaluation of additional biofeedback treatment in an inpatient psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic unit to derive clinical implications and recommendations for the future implementation of biofeedback offers.

Methods: The evaluation of the implementation process was investigated using a convergent parallel mixed methods approach (following MMARS guidelines). Quantitative questionnaires measured patients' acceptance and satisfaction with biofeedback treatment after receiving 10 sessions in addition to treatment as usual. After 6 months during implementation, qualitative interviews were conducted with biofeedback practitioners, i.e., staff nurses, examining acceptance and feasibility. Data analysis was conducted using either descriptive statistics or Mayring's qualitative content analysis.

Results: In total, 40 patients and 10 biofeedback practitioners were included. Quantitative questionnaires revealed high satisfaction and acceptance in patients regarding biofeedback treatment. Qualitative interviews showed high acceptance in biofeedback practitioners but revealed several challenges that were encountered during the implementation process, e.g., increased workload due to additional tasks, organizational and structural difficulties. However, biofeedback practitioners were enabled to expand their own competencies and take over a therapeutic part of the inpatient treatment.

Discussion: Even though patient satisfaction and staff motivation are high, the implementation of biofeedback in an inpatient unit requires special actions to be taken. Not only should personnel resources be planned and available in advance of implementation but also be the workflow for biofeedback practitioners as easy and quality of biofeedback treatment as high as possible. Consequently, the implementation of a manualized biofeedback treatment should be considered. Nevertheless, more research needs to be done about suitable biofeedback protocols for this patient clientele.

Keywords: biofeedback; implementation; inpatient; mixed methods; neurofeedback; psychosomatic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AK is employed by NeuroFit GmbH. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Evaluation of the self-generated questionnaire regarding patients’ acceptance and feasibility of biofeedback treatment. Deviations in the direction of approval and rejection are shown on the right and left in percental frequencies. Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers. Items appear in order of approval.

References

    1. Musiat P, Hoffmann L, Schmidt U. Personalised computerised feedback in E-mental health. J Ment Health. (2012) 21:346–54. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2011.648347, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glombiewski JA, Bernardy K, Häuser W. Efficacy of EMG-and EEG-biofeedback in fibromyalgia syndrome: a Meta-analysis and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. (2013) 2013:962741. doi: 10.1155/2013/962741 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Teufel M, Stephan K, Kowalski A, Käsberger S, Enck P, Zipfel S, et al. Impact of biofeedback on self-efficacy and stress reduction in obesity: a randomized controlled pilot study. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. (2013) 38:177–84. doi: 10.1007/s10484-013-9223-8, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwartz MS, Andrasik F. Biofeedback: A practitioner's guide. New York City: Guilford Publications; (2017).
    1. Kotchoubey B, Strehl U, Holzapfel S, Blankenhorn V, Fröscher W, Birbaumer N. Negative potential shifts and the prediction of the outcome of neurofeedback therapy in epilepsy. Clin Neurophysiol. (1999) 110:683–6. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00005-X, PMID: - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources