Comparison of the Mindfulness Skills, Metacognitive Beliefs and Perceived Stress in Hypertension Patients and Control Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the skills of mindfulness, metacognitive beliefs and perceived stress in hypertension patients and control group. The study was a causal-comparative one. The population included all patients with high blood pressure who were admitted in Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Institute in 2014, 90 of which were selected by purposive sampling. Research instruments include: Kentucky's mindfulness skills (Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004), metacognitive beliefs questionnaire (Welles, 1997) and questionnaire perceived stress (Cohen & Kamarck, 1983). Of all the questionnaires returned, 80 were fully completed and therefore analyzed. Data were analyzed using a t-test and multivariate analysis of variance. Results showed that there is a difference between mindfulness skills and beliefs of people with hypertension and control group. Moreover, the results showed that there isn’t any meaningful difference between the perceived stress in patients with hypertension and control group. It can be said that mindfulness skills, metacognitive beliefs and perceived stress can help us to understand the psychological issues of patients with high blood pressure better.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".