Previous Next


№1' 2022


International Medical Journal, Vol. 28., Iss. 1, 2022, P. 38−42.



Semenenko I. V.

Zaporizhzhia State Medical University, Ukraine

There was studied 41 patients to determine the clinical efficiency of biological feedback in the treatment of infertile women who experienced a prenatal stress. The women were divided into two clinical groups: one used the author's treatment and biological feedback method, and the other used standard infertility treatments. Biological feedback training is a set of procedures in which the patient is provided with information about his/her condition or body functions by a special technical means through a chain of external feedback. The basis of biological feedback is the relationship between mental and autonomic functions of the body. The psycho−emotional state of patients was assessed according to the Beck Depression Scales, the level of anxiety was determined according to the Spielberger − Hanin scale on the 1st day of observation (1st visit) and at the end of the biological feedback training course on the 10th day of observation. According to the study, the number of patients with infertility and prenatal stress who improved their psycho−emotional state as a result of a course of biological feedback training increased immediately after completing the course with daily self−training. There was a significant difference between the indices on the appropriate scales at the beginning and end of the study, that reflects the ability of women to improve their psycho−emotional state through the method of biomanagement. Thus, a 10−day course of biological feedback training is fully accompanied by improved cognitive function and psycho−emotional state of women with infertility and prenatal stress. Patients have a positive effect of bioadaptive therapy for a long time.

Key words: infertility, prenatal stress, psychoemotional disorders, bioadaptive management, neurofeedback method.


1. Batsileva O. V. Psikhologіya reproduktivnogo zdorov'ya: mediko−psikhologіchnі ta sotsіal'nі aspekti. Donets'k: Donbas, 2011. S. 34−35.

2. Shchorіchna dopovіd' pro stan zdorov'ya naselennya, sanіtarno−epіdemіchnu situatsіyu ta rezul'tati dіyal'nostі sistemi okhoroni zdorov'ya Ukraїni. 2016 rіk / MOZ Ukraїni, DU "UІSD MOZ Ukraїni". K., 2018. 519 s.

3. Goessl V., Curtiss J., Hofmann S. The effect of heart rate variability biofeedback training on stress and anxiety: a meta−analysis. Psychological Medicine. 2017. № 47 (15). R. 2578−2586. doi:

4. Banerjee S., Argáez C. Neurofeedback and Biofeedback for Mood and Anxiety Disorders: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines [Internet]. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa (ON), 2018. P. 1−26.

5. Ermoshenko B. G., Kpytova B. A. Rol' psikhologicheskikh faktorov pri besplodii (obzor literatury). Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya. 2005. № 18. S. 16−25.

6. Іvanyuta L. І. Endoskopіya v dіagnostitsі ta lіkuvannya neplіdnostі. Vіsn. akusherіv−gіnekologіv Ukraїni. 2009. № 2. C. 3−7.

7. Yatsishin N. G. Diferentsіiovanii pіdkhіd do profіlaktiki ta lіkuvannya nedonoshuvannya vagіtnostі u zhіnok z bezplіddyam endokrinnogo genezu: avtoref. dis. ... kand. med. nauk; 14.01.01. K., 2006. S. 21−26.

8. A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Electromyographic Biofeedback on Quality of Life and Bowel Symptoms in Elderly Women with Dyssynergic Defecation / M. Simón et al. International J. of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019. Vol. 16 (18). P. 3247. doi:

9. Ryabova M. G. Individual'no−psikhologicheskie osobennosti zhenshchin s razlichnymi tipami narusheniya reproduktivnoi funktsii. Vestn. Tomsk. gos. un−ta. 2013. № 19 (125). S. 176−183.

10. Differences in MDS−UPDRS Scores Based on Hoehn and Yahr Stage and Disease Duration / M. Skorvanek et al. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice. 2017. № 4 (4). R. 536−544.

11. McAusland L., Addington J. Biofeedback to treat anxiety in young people at clinical high risk for developing psychosis. Early Intervention in Psychiatry. 2016. № 12 (4). R. 694−701. doi:

12. Sielski R., Rief W., Glombiewski J. Efficacy of Biofeedback in Chronic back Pain: a Meta−Analysis. International J. of Behavioral Medicine. 2016. № 24 (1). R. 25−41. doi:−016−9572−9

13. Efficacy of biofeedback for medical conditions: An evidence map / K. Kondo et al. J. of general internal medicine. 2019. Vol. 34 (12). P. 2883−2893. doi:−019−05215−z

14. Chandra A., Copen C. E., Stephen E. H. Infertility and Impaired Fecundity in the United States, 1982−2010: Data From the National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports. 2013. Vol. 67. P. 11−29.

15. Electromyographic Biofeedback in Motor Function Recovery After Peripheral Nerve Injury: An Integrative Review of the Literature / R. Duarte−Moreira et al. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. 2018/. Vol. 43 (4). P. 247−257. doi:−018−9403−7

16. An update on behavioral treatments in migraine − current knowledge and future options / P. Kropp, B. Meyer, W. Meyer, T. Dresler. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 2017. Vol. 17 (11). P. 1059−1068. doi:

17. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys / M. Mascarenhas et al. PLOS Medicine. 2016. Vol. 9, № 12. e1001356. doi:

Go on Top