Aquatic Exercise Program for Individuals With Osteoarthritis: Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function, Self-Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This research was conducted to determine the effects of an aquatic exercise program on pain, stiffness, physical function, and self-efficacy in individuals with osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants in the experimental group participated in the aquatic exercise program three times a week for 8 weeks; participants in the control group did not. FINDINGS: The mean scores of the experimental group on the pain, stiffness, and difficulty in carrying out physical functions subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index decreased significantly, whereas those of the control group decreased very little. The mean scores of the experimental group on the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale and the isokinetic muscle strength measurements increased, but those of the control group did not change in the final measurements. The difference between the groups was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Through the study, it was determined that the aquatic exercise program decreased pain, stiffness, and difficulty in carrying out physical functions and increased self-efficacy and muscle strength of individuals with osteoarthritis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The aquatic exercise program can be used by nurses as a reference in the management of osteoarthritic patients' health status.
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) | 0.003 | 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".