Efficacy of Eye Movements Desensitization and Reprocessing on the Quality of Life of the Patients with Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myocardial infarction causes limitations in the physical activity and perturbation of quality of life.The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of eye movements desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) on the quality of life of these patients. This study was conducted in two groups as the before and after while the effect of eye movements desensitization and reprocessing on the quality of life of the patients with Myocardial infarction. Sampling was done based on the purposive sampling. Patients were randomly divided into two experimental and control groups (30 patients in each group). Samples were assigned through randomized allocation. In the experimental group, the EMDR method was carried out on the patients in five 90-minute sessions over a two week period. In the control group no intervention was received. Data of Quality of life, pre-treatment, post-treatment were analyzed using SPSS. The results showed that the quality of life increase in all its dimensions of the experimental group, after performing the EMDR therapy significantly (P=0.001). Treatment what has already been stated, was effective on the quality of life in patients. Treatment team members can use this method as an effective intervention in order to improve the quality of life of their patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".