Managing stress in the post-COVID world requires a program that can efficaciously and cost-effectively address a large number of people who have differing experiences and needs and can also be adapted for internet presentation. The purpose of this paper is to share observations, collected over more than forty years, of group stress management training in university and community settings. The specific data reported are from a subgroup that is representative of the other groups. An in-person group stress-management program of 141 adults in community clinics with approximately 15 to 20 per group attended 10 training sessions across 5 weeks with pre-post personality measures. The group also documented 5 weeks of home practice, symptoms, and medication use. The average group improvement in well-being was 80%, following training in breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, autogenic training, visualization, quieting response, and alphagenics, with individual temperature biofeedback having been provided during the last 5 classes. A pre- to post-two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) trait anxiety and Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) neuroticism significantly decreased. EPI extraversion increased only in females. Males and females equally preferred autogenic training (55%). The most successful males and females were older, practiced more, reported greater increases in self-confidence, and attributed more of their success to the group and/or instructor. The success of a program may also be associated with excellent home practice compliance, being a part of a group, and increases in self-confidence/efficacy.
SPECIAL ISSUE: Differentiating Successful from Less Successful Males and Females in a Group Relaxation/Biofeedback Stress Management Program
Vietta Wilson, Kathy Somers, Erik Peper; SPECIAL ISSUE: Differentiating Successful from Less Successful Males and Females in a Group Relaxation/Biofeedback Stress Management Program. Biofeedback 1 September 2023; 51 (3): 53–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.5298/608570
Download citation file: