Treating Trauma Survivors with Neurofeedback: A Grounded Theory Study

Abstract

Neuroscience, the mental health field, and the concept of trauma as an underlying factor in mental and physical disorders have been inextricably linked since the inception of the mental health professions. Numerous quantitative studies have indicated that neurofeedback may be effective in ameliorating trauma symptoms; however, there is a paucity of research exploring the factors that produce those positive outcomes. The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to explore the factors and processes that influence treatment outcomes when neurofeedback is used with trauma survivors. Thirty interviews were completed with 10 experienced mental health and neurofeedback professionals identified through a nomination process with a snowball sampling method. For this study a wide definition of trauma was used that included traumatic brain injury, the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder, and the seven symptoms associated with complex trauma (Courtois, 2008;Courtois & Ford, 2009;Herman, 1992Herman, , 1997. Research results indicate that the neurofeedback practitioner is central to the treatment process, that practitioner therapeutic skills are crucial to positive neurofeedback outcomes, and that counseling and neurofeedback may effectively complement each other in trauma treatment.

Exploring The Feasibility of Neurofeedback for Trauma-Affected Refugees – A Qualitative Study

“…2 ) The results in this study demonstrated that the move of location to a bigger and brighter room promoted the feasibility as it generated a nicer atmosphere, perceived to have a calming impact. This is in line with previous research by Currie et al, exploring in uencing factors on treatment outcomes when treating trauma survivors with NF (32). Like statements from our participants, Currie and colleagues described how the therapeutic process begins the moment the patient enters the door.…”

Exploring the Use of Neurofeedback by Cancer Survivors: Results of Interviews with Neurofeedback Providers and Clients

“…These results are similar to those described by participants in a grounded theory study who described taking the “leap” into neurofeedback because results were so compelling they couldn’t walk away. [22] Participants in both studies recognized neurofeedback doesn’t fix the brain but prompts learning of self-regulation, and the brain healing itself. This ability is due to the principle of neuroplasticity, which is the ability of the nervous system to respond to stimuli (such as neurofeedback) and reorganize its structure, function, and connections.…”

“…[14] Research suggests nutrition, allergies, toxins, and infections could affect neurofeedback outcomes, as well as client factors such as motivation, culture, and family system. [22] Our participants reported aging, diet, inflammation, and medication use may slow or reduce an individual's response to neurofeedback. Research is needed to confirm these observations, which are particularly relevant to cancer survivors.…”

“…[28] The medical field is seen to support a culture in which patients expect to receive medication to fix their problems, or actively discouraging patients from trying complementary therapies. [22] Neurofeedback can be expensive and is covered by few insurance companies,[528] and may not be affordable for cancer survivors experiencing financial hardship due to out-of-pocket expenses or loss of salary. [29] Most neurofeedback providers are psychologists and research has tended to focus on mental health applications; thus more research is needed with cancer survivors.…”

Can police be trained in trauma processing to minimise PTSD symptoms? Feasibility and proof of concept with a newly recruited UK police population

“…Likely to remember to apply techniques after an incident (%) Trauma exposure coding was undertaken using basic thematic analysis (Currie et al, 2014;Skinner et al, 2019) to see whether it was possible to detect any typical 'first trauma exposures' 7 in new recruits. Themes were extracted from monthly check-ins from March onwards 8 (n ¼ 71) and the difficult or traumatic incidents participants selected in session 2 training (n ¼ 32) and session 3 control group training (n ¼ 28).…”