Why the study?
Does an 8-week autogenic training program reduce stress response and improve heart rate variability in nursing students experiencing clinical training stress?
Does an 8-week autogenic training program reduce stress response and improve heart rate variability in nursing students experiencing clinical training stress?
Autogenic training significantly reduces subjective stress responses in nursing students, though it does not significantly alter objective heart rate variability metrics.
May reduce subjective stress in nursing students; leaves open effects on HRV and requires prospective trials before adoption.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to confirm the effects of autogenic training (AT) on stress response and heart rate variability in nursing school students experiencing stress related to clinical training. METHODS: The study was carried out from September 2012 to April 2013 in a quasi-experimental nonequivalent control group using a pretest-posttest design. The participants were 40 nursing students in their third year at either of two nursing colleges. All consented to participate. Nineteen nursing students at one college were assigned to the experimental group and underwent the 8-week AT program, and the other 21 were assigned to the control group and did not undergo any training. Stress response was assessed by questionnaire and HRV was measured three times, that is, before the program, at the end of the program, and 6 months after the end of the AT program. RESULTS: A significant time/group interaction was found for stress response (F = 4.68, p = .012), a subjective indicator. However, no significant interaction was found for the objective indicators of heart rate variability, normalized low frequency (F = 2.59, p = .090), normalized high frequency (F = 2.59, p = .090), or low frequency to high frequency ratio (F = 1.38, p = .257). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that AT provides an acceptable approach to stress reduction in nursing students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: