A Quasi Experimental Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Ginger Powder on Dysmenorrhea among Nursing Students in Selected Nursing Colleges, Hoshiarpur, Punjab
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: primary dysmenorrhea is one of the most common gynecologic disorders affecting more than half of menstruating women that interferes with daily activities. Some studies have found alternative methods such as acupuncture, acupressure, stimulation, massage, aromatherapy and ginger to be fairly effective for treatment of dysmenorrhea. Ginger is a spice that has traditionally been treated as medicine. So, ginger powder was used to assess its effect on dysmenorrhea among nursing students. Material & Methods: sample of 60 nursing students from selected nursing colleges, 30 each in experimental group and control group were selected by non-probability purposive sampling technique. Subjective and objective assessment of level of dysmenorrhea wer done by using modified mcgill pain questionnaire and standardized wong bakers faces pain rating scale respectively. Analysis was done by using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings: findings showed that according to subjective assessment in experimental group, 100% nursing students had mild level of pain, whereas in control group, 46.67% had mild level of pain, On the other hand, according to objective assessment in experimental group 66.7% had mild level of pain whereas in control group 56.7% had moderate pain. Results were found statistically significant at p < 0.01 level in experimental group on both subjective and objective assessment. Conclusion: study reveals that there was impact of ginger powder on dysmenorrhea among nursing students in experimental group.
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.
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 | 0.076 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it