Effect of Foot Reflexology and Olive Oil Foot Massageon Asthma Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are some non-invasive and affordable treatments for asthma with fewer side effects, such as reflexology and olive oil foot massage in complementary and alternative medicine. There is a lack of studies regarding the efficacy of olive oil foot massage and reflexology for asthma control. This study was done to investigate the effect of foot reflexology and olive oil foot massage on asthma control. METHODS: This randomized controlled clinical trial study was performed in 2013 on 45 adult patients suffered from asthma. Participants were divided into three groups (15 in each group): foot reflexology (R), olive oil foot massage (O) and control(C). The reflexology and olive oil foot massage were done by a massage therapist for ten sessions, three times a week for 15 minutes. Asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) was used to determine the adequacy of asthma control. Data were analyzed by SPSS 18. P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Significant difference was seen in Asthma Control mean scores for both of reflexology and foot massage groups at the baseline and after the intervention (p<0.01). There was no significant difference between R and O groups in their asthma control mean scores at the end of the intervention. CONCLUSION: The results showed that foot reflexology and olive oil foot massage could improve the asthma control. Further study is needed on the interaction of these two interventions, to compare them with the use of specific drug treatments, and to investigate the effect of olive oil absorption on asthma.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".