Effect of psychological intervention on post-traumatic stress symptoms and pregnancy outcomes among women with previous recurrent abortion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recurrent abortion is both physically and psychologically a traumatic experience. Some women also experience anxiety, anger, posttraumatic stress, and guilt about future childbearing. Supportive psychotherapy aims to minimize deterioration and maximize competence within the limitations imposed by the illness. The purpose of the study was to study the effect of psychological intervention on post-traumatic stress symptoms and pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women with previous recurrent abortion.Methods: Research design: a quasi-experimental research design (with pre-post measurements) was used in this study. Subjects: A purposive sample of 40 pregnant women was recruited. Tools: Two tools were used for data collection: interviewing questionnaire and posttraumatic stress disorder checklist.Results: There was a statistically significant difference between pre and post intervention results regarding stress symptoms severity after the intervention. Psychological intervention was associated with positive pregnancy outcomes.Conclusions and recommendations: The first research hypothesis was accepted as it was found that the psychological intervention decreased post traumatic stress symptoms among studied women. The second hypothesis was also accepted as the psychological intervention was associated with positive pregnancy outcomes. Manage women with recurrent abortion within the purview of holistic nursing practice which address the bio-psychosocial responses of abortion.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".