Feasibility and Acceptability of Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback in a Group of Veterans with Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of a heart rate variability biofeedback (HRVB) protocol in a focus group of Veterans with fibromyalgia (FM). Design: A multimethod feasibility and acceptability study. Settings/location: A Veterans Health outpatient pain medicine clinic in the southern United States. Subjects: The researcher enrolled seven women and three men between the ages of 33 and 68 years with a diagnosis of FM. Interventions: Participants practiced HRVB on the emWave2 at home for 20 min twice daily for 7 weeks. Outcome measures: Feasibility to adhere to the HRVB protocol was measured using the practice frequency and time (minutes) data collected from the emWave2. The author compared the individual reports from participants with the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire to measure the acceptability of the intervention. In addition, the principal investigator evaluated data from the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SFMQ) and the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR) at the baseline and weekly study visits for a signal of efficacy for pain control, functional status, and quality of life (QOL). Results: The majority of participants (80%) expected 50% or more improvement in their pain, and (70%) felt HRVB would reduce their FM-related pain by 50%–80%. The mean daily practice frequency rate was 0.80. The mean practice duration was 19.36 min. Pain score differences from the SFMQ were insignificant preintervention and postintervention. The mean total FIQR scores postintervention improved by 18.1 points. Conclusions: Findings suggest twice-daily HRVB practice protocol is not feasible. However, 20-min HRVB sessions were feasible and acceptable. Improved FIQR scores post-treatment suggest HRVB may be an effective strategy to improve functional status and QOL for Veterans with FM. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: Pro00079144.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".