Utilizing Chair Massage to Address One Woman’s Health in Rural Ghana West Africa: a Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is limited access to health care in rural Ghana and virtually no rehabilitative services available. This situation presents a unique opportunity to utilize chair massage in addressing women's health in rural Ghana, particularly when it comes to muscle pain and fatigue from heavy labor. The objective of this case report is to determine the results of chair massage as a strategy to reduce neck, shoulder, and back pain, while increasing range of motion. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient is a 63-year-old Ghanaian female, who was struck by a public transport van while carrying a 30-50 pound load on her head, two years prior. The accident resulted in a broken right humerus and soft tissue pain. A traditional medicine practitioner set the bone, however there was no post-accident rehabilitation available. At the time of referral, she presented complaints of shoulder, elbow, and wrist pain. In addition, she was unable to raise her right hand to her mouth for food intake. RESULTS: The results of this case report include an increase in range of motion, as well as elimination of pain in the right shoulder, elbow, and hand. Visual assessments showed an approximate increase of ROM within the ranges of 45-65 degrees in the right arm, as well as 10-15 degrees in 4th and 5th fingers. There was also a decrease in muscle hypertonicity in the thoracic and cervical areas, and a profound increase in quality of life for the patient. DISCUSSION: This case report illustrates how therapeutic chair massage was utilized to address a common health concern for one woman in rural Ghana. It also demonstrates that pre-existing musculoskeletal disorders and pain may be eliminated with massage intervention. Massage therapy may be important to ameliorating certain types of health problems in remote rural villages in low income countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".