The Effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Biofeedback on Chronic Psychosomatic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mental processes can make the pain and quality of life of women with chronic psychosomatic low back pain better or worse. acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and biofeedback have on some psychosomatic disorder. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of ACT and biofeedback on severity and duration of pain and quality of life among women with chronic psychosomatic low back pain. Materials & Methods: This three-group Pre-test and post-test controlled quasi-experimental study was conducted from September 2016 to June 2017. Thirty women with chronic psychosomatic low back pain were conveniently recruited from Rasht pain clinic, Rasht, Iran, and randomly allocated to three ten-person groups including ACT, biofeedback, and control groups. Data were collected before and after the study intervention using the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the short version of the World Health Organization quality of life (QOL) survey. Data analysis was performed using the one-way analysis of variance as well as the Chi-square, the paired-sample Test, and post-hoc Scheffe Tests. Results: Both ACT and biofeedback interventions significantly and similarly reduce severity and duration of pain and improve the quality of life. ACT had significant effects on the psychological, social, and environmental health domains of quality of life, while biofeedback had significant effects only on the physical health domain. Conclusion: ACT and biofeedback are effective on psychosomatic low back pain. Unlike the ACT, biofeedback has significant effect on the physical health aspect of QOL and it has no effects on the other aspects of QOL.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".