Why the study?
Heart rate variability biofeedback interventions are rarely applied in schools, and the study investigated the benefits of using a biofeedback programme to train children in controlling their heart rate variability through real-time slow-paced breathing.
Does an HRV biofeedback intervention programme improve heart rate variability in primary education students aged 7 to 11 years?
Does an HRV biofeedback intervention programme improve heart rate variability in primary education students aged 7 to 11 years?
A five-session HRV biofeedback intervention using slow-paced breathing significantly increases heart rate variability in primary school children.
May support self-regulation in schoolchildren via HRV biofeedback; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before any clinical use.
This study investigated the benefits of using a biofeedback intervention programme to train children in controlling their heart rate variability (HRV) through slow-paced breathing in real time. HRV biofeedback interventions focused on showing subjects to breathe such that their HRV numbers rise, improving their self-regulation. The HRV biofeedback intervention, focused on breathing, was conducted with primary education students aged between 7 and 11 years. The programme consisted of five biofeedback sessions, where students were taught to breathe six long and slow pairs of breaths per minute, to increase their HRV. After participation in the programme, students, regardless of gender, increased their HRV in a statistically significant fashion with a large effect, but this effect was not the same for all ages. HRV biofeedback interventions are rarely applied in schools and given the effectiveness of the intervention to improve HRV in children, the applied implications of our results in educational settings are discussed, especially taking into account the children's ages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aritzeta et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: