META-ANALYSIS
A Synthesized Model for Applying Stress Management and Biofeedback Interventions in Research Utilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Manyat Ruchiwit1
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2024Volume: 20
E-location ID: e17450179276691
Publisher ID: e17450179276691
DOI: 10.2174/0117450179276691231229071003
Article History:
Received Date: 10/08/2023Revision Received Date: 01/11/2023
Acceptance Date: 08/11/2023
Electronic publication date: 28/02/2024
Collection year: 2024
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
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.
