Evaluating a Yogic Breathing and Meditation Intervention for Individuals Living with HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a group program aimed at improving well-being among individuals living with HIV/AIDS. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate a residential program designed to teach breathing, movement, and meditation techniques. Sixty-two participants were recruited from community HIV/AIDS organizations. Fifteen withdrawals from the study left 47 study participants. Standardized measures used were the Mental Health Index (MHI), the MOS-HIV Health Survey (MOS), and the Daily Stress Inventory (DSI), along with qualitative interviews. RESULTS: A repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated positive changes in well-being on the MHI and the MOS, where the effect was primarily seen immediately following the program and disappeared at later data points. The DSI indicated an increase in experience and impact of stress over time for the intervention group postprogram. Alternatively, the qualitative interviews described positive changes in how participants were living their day-to-day lives. CONCLUSION: In order to capture the outcomes of this program properly, both qualitative and quantitative measures are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".