Applied Tension and Coping with Blood Donation: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the ongoing need for blood donation, few people give blood. A common reason is concern about vasovagal symptoms. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of applied tension in reducing vasovagal symptoms during blood donation and the mechanisms of action. METHOD: Two hundred eighty-two young adult blood donors were randomly assigned to conditions involving applied tension during the pre-donation wait period, during the blood draw, both, or no applied tension at all. RESULTS: Applied tension was effective in reducing vasovagal symptoms in blood donors, particularly when practiced during the pre-donation wait period (p < 0.001). People who practiced applied tension during the pre-donation wait period required less treatment for vasovagal reactions than people who did not (8% vs. 16%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the effects of applied tension on vasovagal symptoms are not mediated entirely by exercise-related changes in blood pressure and heart rate. Rather, it may reduce anxiety or physiological consequences of anxiety. Applied tension is a useful treatment which can help people cope during blood donation and other invasive medical interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".