The Impact of Yoga on Quality of Life and Psychological Distress in Caregivers for Patients With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a six-week Vinyasa yoga (VY) intervention on caregivers' overall quality of life (QOL) and psychological distress. DESIGN: A single-group, pre- and post-test pilot study. SETTING: University public recreational facility. SAMPLE: 12 informal caregivers for patients with cancer. METHODS: Caregivers participated in a six-week VY intervention and completed measures of QOL and psychological distress pre- and postintervention. Program satisfaction was measured with open-ended survey questions. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: QOL, psychological distress, and program satisfaction. FINDINGS: Significant improvements were found in the mental component score of overall QOL and in overall psychological distress. Several subdomains of QOL and psychological distress were also improved significantly. Open-ended survey question responses revealed participants perceived physical and mental benefit from the intervention, highlighting improvements in flexibility, core and upper-body strength, balance, breathing, and energy. CONCLUSIONS: Informal caregivers may benefit mentally and physically from participating in VY. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Caregivers of patients with cancer characterize a group worthy of attention, research, and interventions focusing on their healthcare needs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".