Positive Health Online
Your Country
![[Image: http://www.abundanceandhealth.co.uk]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/2836.df7d2315253110ff5b3a566f94871f99.jpg "http://www.abundanceandhealth.co.uk")
![[Image: https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/4046.12831f50177f8848ee87b8e94411d6b3.jpg "https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/")
![[Image: http://www.balens.co.uk]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/2148.50367fa908013fae0a7f1a171543ef92.jpg "http://www.balens.co.uk")
![[Image: http://www.drsgoodman.com/books-goodman/52-nutrition-and-cancer]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/1859.1296090fd8385e7ceff51c8011559097.jpg "http://www.drsgoodman.com/books-goodman/52-nutrition-and-cancer")
Research: SCHARFF and colleagues,
Listed in Issue 81
Abstract
SCHARFF and colleagues, Pain Treatment Service, Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA, lisa.scharff@tch.harvard.edu, evaluated the effectiveness of thermal biofeedback in comparison with attention control in improving migraine symptoms in children.
Background
Many studies have shown that thermal biofeedback can effectively reduce symptoms in children with migraine. However, there have been no reports of how this treatment compares with biofeedback-assisted attention control.
Methodology
This randomized controlled study enrolled 36 children and adolescents (mean age 12.8 years) who experienced migraines and their parents. The children were assigned to one of three groups: 1) hand-warming biofeedback (HWB); 2) credible attention control using biofeedback technology (hand-cooling; HCB); or 3) waiting list (control). The treatment groups (HWB and HCB) received four sessions of biofeedback training and were given a portable biofeedback device for home practice. Children were assessed for anxiety and depression using questionnaires provided to the children and to both their parents. The children were also provided with instruments for rating their credibility of the two biofeedback treatments.
Results
34 children completed the treatment programme(s). The two biofeedback treatments (HWB and HCB) were rated as equally credible by the children who experienced them. More subjects in the HWB group achieved clinical improvement of their migraine symptoms than in the HCB group. Benefits of treatment were still apparent up to 6 months after treatment. HWB resulted in a general increase in [body] temperature, while HCB caused a decrease in temperature.
Conclusion
The results confirm the findings of earlier studies of thermal biofeedback in children suffering from migraine. They also indicate that the benefits of treatments are specific to the HWB and stress management techniques used. HCB may be useful as a control treatment in future such studies in this area, but data from a larger number of subjects are needed to confirm this.
References
Scharff L et al. A controlled study of minimal-contact thermal biofeedback treatment in children with migraine. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 27 (2): 109-19. Mar 2002.
