Semenenko I. V.

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE

Scentific article

Treatment of psychoemotional disorders in infertile patients with prenatal stress (PS) is an important component of comprehensive treatment of the disease. This study examined the clinical efficacy of a non-drug method of bioadaptive management – training based on biological feedback (BFB) in the correction of psychoemotional disorders in patients with infertility and prenatal stress. Object and methods of research. The study involved 41 patients with infertility and PS aged 24 to 44 years. Group I consisted of 22 women who received infertility treatment using the proposed method of treatment and biological feedback, group II – 19 women who received treatment using the proposed method of treatment without the use of biological feedback. All patients were assessed for psychoemotional status on the Beck Depression Scale (BDI-II), Spielberger-Hanin tests for reactive anxiety, assessment of personal anxiety on the first day of observation, at the end of the course of BFB training in 10±2 days in the first group and in the group comparisons. The results. There was a significant overall improvement in the psycho-emotional state of patients who underwent a full course of BOS training at the end of therapy (p<0.01). A statistically significant difference was found between the level of certain psycho-emotional disorders (in particular, anxiety, reduced stress resistance) of the studied groups (p<0.01). However, in contrast to group I patients who underwent BFB training, no statistically significant improvement in the psychoemotional status of group II patients during the observation period was found. Conclusions. BFB training can be considered as a useful component in the complex treatment of psycho-emotional disorders in patients with infertility and prenatal stress. Patients with infertility and prenatal stress have long had a positive effect of bioadaptive therapy

infertility, prenatal stress, psychoemotional disorders, bioadaptive management, neurofeedback method

1. Batsyleva OV. Psykholohiia reproduktyvnoho zdorov’ia: medyko-psykholohichni ta sotsialni aspekty. Donetsk: Donbas; 2011. 236 s. [in Ukrainian].
2. Ministerstvo okhorony zdorov’ya Ukrayiny. Shchorichna dopovid pro stan zdorov’ia naselennia, sanitarno-epidemichnu sytuatsiiu ta rezultaty diialnosti systemy okhorony zdorov’ia Ukrainy. 2016 rik. Kyiv; 2017. 519 s. [in Ukrainian].
3. Gluhovets BI, Gluhovets NG, Novikova EI. Іskusstvennoe besplodye sovremennykh zhenshchyn (medytsynskye y sotsyalnye aspekty). Mater. X rehyonalnoho nauch. foruma Mat y dytia; Kazan; 2017. s. 224-225. [in Russian].
4. Ermoshenko BG, Kpytova BA. Rol psihologicheskih faktorov pri besplodii (obzor literaturyi). Uspehi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya. 2005;18:16-25. [in Russian].
5. .Ivaniuta LI. Endoskopiia v diahnostytsi ta likuvannia neplidnosti. Visnyk akusheriv-hinekolohiv Ukrainy. 2009;2:3-7. [in Ukrainian].
6. Derzhavna sluzhba statystyky Ukrayiny. Tablytsi narodzhuvanosti, smertnosti ta serednoi ochikuvanoi tryvalosti zhyttia u 2017 rotsi: statystychna informatsiia [Internet]. Kyyiv: Derzhavna sluzhba statystyky Ukrayiny; 2017. Dostupno: http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/ PXWEB2007/ ukr/publ_new1/2018/publ2018.asp. [in Ukrainian].
7. Banerjee S, Argáez C. Neurofeedback and biofeedback for mood and anxiety disorders: A review of clinical effectiveness and guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017. 26 p.
8. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982-2010: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Natl Health Stat Report. 2013 Aug 14;67:11-29.
9. Yatsyshyn NH. Dyferentsiiovanyi pidkhid do profilaktyky ta likuvannia nedonoshuvannia vahitnosti u zhinok z bezpliddiam endokrynnoho henezu [dysertetsiia]. Ivano-Frankivsk: Ivano-Frankivskyi derzh. medychnyi un-t; 2006. 172 s. [in Ukrainian].
10. Ryabova MG. Individualno-psihologicheskie osobennosti zhenschin s razlichnyimi tipami narusheniya reproduktivnoy funktsii. Vestnik TGU. 2013;19(125):176-183. [in Russian].
11. Duarte-Moreira R, Castro K, Luz-Santos C, Martins J, Sá K, Baptista A. Electromyographic biofeedback in motor function recovery after peripheral nerve injury: An integrative review of the literature. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2018 Dec;43(4):247-57.
12. Goessl V, Curtiss J, Hofmann S. The effect of heart rate variability biofeedback training on stress and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Nov;47(15):2578-86.
13. Kropp P, Meyer B, Meyer W, Dresler T. An update on behavioral treatments in migraine – current knowledge and future options. Expert Rev Neurother. 2017 Nov;17(11):1059-68.
14. Simón M, Bueno A, Otero P, Vázquez F, Blanco V. A randomized controlled trial on the effects of electromyographic biofeedback on quality of life and bowel symptoms in elderly women with dyssynergic defecation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 4;16(18):3247.
15. McAusland L, Addington J. Biofeedback to treat anxiety in young people at clinical high risk for developing psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;12(4):694-701.
16. Mascarenhas M, Flaxman S, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens G. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356.
17. Sielski R, Rief W, Glombiewski J. Efficacy of biofeedback in chronic back pain: a meta-analysis. Int J Behav Med. 2017 Feb;24(1):25-41.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 4 (162), 2021 year, 189-193 pages, index UDK 616.36 -06:616.45-001.1/.3

10.29254/2077-4214-2021-4-162-189-193