4.4 Article

The Effect of Craniosacral Therapy on Blood Levels of Stress Hormones in Male Firefighter Cadets: A Randomized Clinical Trial

期刊

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bs13110914

关键词

stress; cortisol; corticotropin-releasing hormone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Craniosacral therapy has been shown to significantly reduce stress hormone levels in male firefighting cadets, indicating its effectiveness in mitigating the negative effects of stress.
(1) Background: Fire department cadets preparing to become firefighters and paramedics experience high levels of stress when participating in incidents like traffic accidents and fires. Stress adversely affects health, and coping with it proves difficult. Unfortunately, there is no single method that reduces stress completely in humans. One non-invasive method for lowering stress hormone levels is craniosacral therapy. (2) Methods: Fifty-seven firefighting cadets aged 18-24 years (21.63 +/- 1.41) participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to either a test group or a control group. Participants' blood levels of cortisol and CRH (corticotropin-releasing hormone) were assessed before and after the study. The study group underwent 5-week craniosacral therapy (1x per week). (3) Results: The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the therapy group's results were statistically significant for CRH values (p-value = 0.00067) and for cortisol values (p-value <= 0.0001). Wilxocon and Dunn tests showed statistical significance for cortisol after CS therapy between the control and study groups (p = 0.0377), and for CRH between the control and study groups before (p = 0.00634) and after the study (p = 0.000887), and in the study group before and after the study (p = 0.0101). (4) Conclusions: The application of craniosacral therapy reduced stress hormone levels in male firefighter cadets. The results indicate that craniosacral therapy (five sessions, one per week) has an effect on the reduction of stress hormones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据