Biofeedback: Studies in Clinical Efficacy PDF
Preview Biofeedback: Studies in Clinical Efficacy
Biofeedback Studies in Clinical Efficacy Biofeedback Studies in Clinical Efficacy Edited by P. jOHN HATCH G. jOHNNIE FISHER and D. jOHN RUGH The University of Texas Health Science Center a/ San Antonio San Antonio, Texas Sponsored by the Biofeedback Society of America SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Biofeedback: studies in clinical efficacy. "Sponsored by the Biofeedback Society of America." Includes bibliographies and index. 1. Biofeedback training. 2. Medicine, Clinical. I. Hatch, John P. II. Fisher, Johnnie G. III. Rugh, John. IV. Biofeedback Society of America. [DNLM: 1. Biofeedback (Psychology). WL 103 B6143] RC489.B53B568 1987 615.8'51 86·30358 ISBN 978-1-4757-9464-9 ISBN 978-1-4757-9462-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-9462-5 © 1987 Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1987 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1987 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical. photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher Contributors FRANK ANDRASIK Pain Therapy Centers, Greenville Hospital System, Greenville, South Carolina EDWARD B. BLANCHARD Center for Stress and Anxiety Disorders, State University of New York at Albany, 1535 Western Avenue, Albany, New York BERNARD T. ENGEL Gerontology Research Center, Baltimore, Maryland, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, and Francis Scott Key Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland MICHAEL S. GLASGOW Gerontology Research Center, Baltimore, Maryland, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, and Francis Scott Key Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland }OHN P. HATCH Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas v vi CONTRIBUTORS TIMOTHY J. HOELSCHER Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina JOHN 5. JORDAN Behavioral Physiology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina FRANCIS J. KEEFE Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina F. DuDLEY McGLYNN Department of Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, Florida WALLACE L. MEALIEA, JR. Department of Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, Florida MARVIN M. SCHUSTER The fohns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Division of Digestive Diseases, Francis Scott Key Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland RICHARD S. SuRWIT Behavioral Physiology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina CONTRIBUTORS vii WILLIAM E. WHITEHEAD The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Division of Digestive Diseases, Francis Scott Key Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland M. FISCHER-WILLIAMS Wells Building, Suite 433, 324 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin STEVEN L. WOLF Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia Reviewers Steven M. Baskin, Ph.D. John P. Hatch, Ph.D. Charles Burgar, M.D. Kenneth A. Holroyd, Ph.D. I. G. Burnside Rolf G. Jacob, M.D. Andrew Cannistraci, D.D.S., John W. Largen, Ph.D. F.A.C.D. James W. Maas, M.D. Michael F. Cataldo, Ph.D. Robert Moss, Ph.D. Mary R. Cook, Ph.D. Peter D. Neilson, Ph.D. Jeffrey R. Cram, Ph.D. Jeffrey P. Okesen, D.M.D Jeffrey A. Cutler, M.D. Barbara Peavey, Ph.D. Lars Dahlstrom, D.D.S., Odont. Dr. H. C. Philips, Ph.D. Robert Dale, D.D.S. Thomas G. Pickering, M.D., Donald J. Dalessio, M.D. D. Phil. Douglas DeGood, Ph.D John D. Rugh, Ph.D. Chulani K. Fernando, M.A., Steve H. Sanders, Ph.D. R.P.T. Joseph D. Sargent, M.D. William W. Finley, Ph.D. Keith W. Sedlacek, M.D. Johnnie G. Fisher, M.D. David Shapiro, Ph.D. Robert Freedman, Ph.D. A. Maureen Skelly, M.Sc., Kenneth R. Gaarder, M.D. M.C.S.P. Elliot Gale, Ph.D. Edward J. Snyder, III, M.D. Robert J. Gatchel, Ph.D. Edward Taub, Ph.D. Janel Gauthier, Ph.D. Dennis C. Turk, Ph.D. Charles Greene, D.D.S. Stephen M. Weiss, Ph.D. viii Preface The chapters of this book were prepared as task force reports under the aegis of the Biofeedback Society of America (BSA). The impetus for the present generation of task force reports can be dated back to 1982, when John D. Rugh, as President-Elect of the Society, announced that the updating of the task force reports would be given high priority during his term as President. An ad hoc Task Force Committee was appointed in 1983, and the committee set the following objectives: (1) solicit a widely based stream of input from all segments of the Biofeedback Society of America, (2) establish a peer review system to assure the highest degree of scholarship and an unbiased approach, (3) select for area authors only individuals who have profound knowledge of the area and who have demonstrated the ability to extend understanding by reviewing and criticizing the literature, (4) prepare all reports according to a standard ized format, and (5) publish all the reports simultaneously. Input came from several sources. Many people responded with ideas and suggestions to an announcement in the BSA Newsletter that the task force reports were being revised. In 1984, a symposium was conducted at the BSA annual meeting, which included round table dis cussions and dialogues between task force report authors and the BSA membership. A questionnaire soliciting suggestions about topic areas and authors was sent to all BSA officers, executive board members, committee chairpersons, and Biofeedback and Self-Regulation editorial board members. Finally, informal suggestions and advice were accepted by committee members and authors about every aspect of the project. The peer review system that was established to review the task force reports was in most cases more rigorous than the treatment most peer reviewed journal articles would receive. A total of 40 individuals were involved in the review process. All chapters were reviewed by at least one physician who was regarded as an expert in the field. The reviewers ix X PREFACE were well aware of the importance that the task force reports would have for the field of biofeedback, and consequently they carried out their assignments in a very professionally responsible manner. Authors con tinued to rewrite their chapters until exacting standards were met. Each of the authors demonstrated integrity and scientific stature, and all did an exceptional job of navigating an honest and unbiased course in the midst of frequently incomplete information and conflicting criticisms. Without the hours of effort these dedicated members of the biofeedback research community provided, completion of this book would have been utterly impossible. All authors were provided specific instructions and a detailed chap ter outline to be followed in preparing their task force report. This as sured a consistent approach to all areas. The primary objective was to document the clinical efficacy of biofeedback in the context of its use in treating specific disorders. The authors were instructed to emphasize the strongest available scientific evidence pertaining to the clinical ef ficacy of biofeedback in the treatment of a particular disorder. They were also asked to consider clinical lore, case studies, and data from uncontrolled outcome studies, but only insofar as these sources materially added to the knowledge base and were not contradicted by stronger evidence. The chapter outline required that the following seven sections be included in each report: (1) introduction, (2) clinical efficacy, (3) specificity of effect, (4) mechanism of action, (5) cost-effectiveness, (6) future research, and (7) conclusions. The primary objective of the task force reports was to document the clinical efficacy of biofeedback in the context of its use in treating specific disorders. Nonetheless, publication of the reports simultaneously in a single volume had the advantage of facilitating a synthesis of information from various areas of application. Such a synthesis of information should help to advance the body of knowledge covering the whole field of biofeedback. }OHN P. HATCH
The list of books you might like
