| Literature DB >> 22558370 |
Stéphane Bouchard1, François Bernier, Eric Boivin, Brian Morin, Geneviève Robillard.
Abstract
This study assessed the efficacy of using visual and auditory biofeedback while immersed in a tridimensional videogame to practice a stress management skill (tactical breathing). All 41 participants were soldiers who had previously received basic stress management training and first aid training in combat. On the first day, they received a 15-minute refresher briefing and were randomly assigned to either: (a) no additional stress management training (SMT) for three days, or (b) 30-minute sessions (one per day for three days) of biofeedback-assisted SMT while immersed in a horror/first-person shooter game. The training was performed in a dark and enclosed environment using a 50-inch television with active stereoscopic display and loudspeakers. On the last day, all participants underwent a live simulated ambush with an improvised explosive device, where they had to provide first aid to a wounded soldier. Stress levels were measured with salivary cortisol collected when waking-up, before and after the live simulation. Stress was also measured with heart rate at baseline, during an apprehension phase, and during the live simulation. Repeated-measure ANOVAs and ANCOVAs confirmed that practicing SMT was effective in reducing stress. Results are discussed in terms of the advantages of the proposed program for military personnel and the need to practice SMT.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22558370 PMCID: PMC3338628 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036169
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Participants' flowchart.
Cortisol (ug/dL) for participants who received the ImPACT program or Training As Usual before and after a live and stressful simulation.
| Free cortisol levels in ug/dL (standard deviation) | ||
| ImPACT | TAU-Control | |
| Waking-up | 7.79 (4.6) | 9.04 (4.36) |
| Pre simulation | 5.93 (2.39) | 5.82 (4.47) |
| Post simulation | 7.22 (3.85) | 8.8 (4.94) |
Figure 2Illustration of a significant difference in stress response as measured with free salivary cortisol (in ug/dL) for participants who received the ImPACT program or training as usual (TAU-Control) before and after a live and stressful simulation.
Average heart rate before and during all phases of the live simulation (Day 5 of the experiment).
| Mean heart rate (standard deviation) | ||
| ImPACT | TAU-Control | |
| Baseline | 93.32 (13.57) | 86.26 (9.62) |
| Apprehension 1 | 94.08 (11.68) | 91.27 (12.80) |
| Apprehension 2 | 110.92 (14.12) | 112.41 (16.77) |
| Simulation | 132.88 (24.72) | 130.86 (21.58) |
Figure 3Illustration of the differential increase in heart rate from the baseline to the first apprehension period (when reading the mission) and the second apprehension period (when waiting in front of the curtain wall) phases of a live first aid simulation.
Trainees Evaluation Sheet rated by “blind” military medical instructors during the simulation describing the percentage of participants who followed adequately the official first aid protocol.
| Rated as successfully performed | Chi-Square value (df = 1) | ||
| ImPACT | TAU-Control | ||
| Asses the scene for safety | 95% | 95% | 2.03 |
| Assess respiration and correct in needed | 65% | 60% | .11 |
| Assess blood circulation and correct if needed | 90.0% | 89.5% | .003 |
| Identify appropriate treatment - chest wound | 58.0% | 55.0% | .03 |
| Apply treatment efficiently – chest wound | 42.0% | 5.0% | 7.56 |
| Adapt to changes in patient's status if needed | 68.4% | 35.0% | 4.36 |
| Performing without any mistake | 45.0% | 10.0% | 6.14 |
Note.
Values of chi-square p<.007.
Values of chi-square p<.05, ns.
Unwanted side effects during each session of the ImPACT program.
| Self-report of simulator sickness | |||
| Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3 | |
| Simulator Sickness Questionnaire pre session | 2.38 (2.75) | 2.14 (3.31) | 2.48 (5.21) |
| Simulator Sickness Questionnaire post session | 3.71 (4.78) | 3.33 (4.53) | 3.67 (4.6) |
Use of the available controls at least once during a session by the coaches.
| The option was used at least once | |||
| Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3 | |
| Adjust sensitivity | 86% | 100% | 90% |
| Adjust respective weight | 43% | 62% | 84% |
| Adjust baseline | 43% | 53% | 70% |
Descriptive statistics from the survey assessing participant's impression of the ImPACT program on scales ranging from 0 to 10.
| Mean | St. Dev. | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Felt stress during the immersions | 6.14 | 2.02 | 2 | 10 |
| Like the immersions | 9.05 | 1.05 | 7 | 10 |
| Immersions would be useful to practice SMT | 8.38 | 1.78 | 5 | 10 |
| Visual feedback was useful | 8.14 | 1.78 | 5 | 10 |
| Presence of the coach was useful to master SMT | 8.95 | 1.61 | 7 | 10 |
| How stressful was: | - | - | - | - |
| Sounds in the game | 7.6 | 2.16 | 2 | 10 |
| Quality of the images | 7.3 | 2.34 | 2 | 10 |
| Visual feedback of heart rate | 8.35 | 1.81 | 4 | 10 |
| Darkness | 6.55 | 2.84 | 0 | 10 |
| Playing the game | 7.4 | 2.04 | 3 | 10 |
| Playing with a colleague | 6.45 | 3.46 | 0 | 10 |
| Effects of surprise | 7.8 | 2.24 | 3 | 10 |
| Forewarning effects | 7.4 | 1.85 | 3 | 10 |