Evaluation of a Specialized Yoga Program for Persons Admitted to a Complex Continuing Care Hospital: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a specialized yoga intervention for inpatients in a rehabilitation and complex continuing care hospital. Design. Single‐cohort repeated measures design. Methods. Participants (N = 10) admitted to a rehabilitation and complex continuing care hospital were recruited to participate in a 50–60 min Hatha Yoga class (modified for wheelchair users/seated position) once a week for eight weeks, with assigned homework practice. Questionnaires on pain (pain, pain interference, and pain catastrophizing), psychological variables (depression, anxiety, and experiences with injustice), mindfulness, self‐compassion, and spiritual well‐being were collected at three intervals: pre‐, mid‐, and post‐intervention. Results. Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed a significant main effect of time indicating improvements over the course of the yoga program on the (1) anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, F(2,18) = 4.74, p < .05, and = .35, (2) Self‐Compassion Scale‐Short Form, F(2,18) = 3.71, p < .05, and = .29, and (3) Magnification subscale of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, F(2,18) = 3. 66, p < .05, and = .29. Discussion. The results suggest that an 8‐week Hatha Yoga program improves pain‐related factors and psychological experiences in individuals admitted to a rehabilitation and complex continuing care hospital.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".