The Effect of Humor Therapy on Relieving Quality and Fear of Pain in Elderly Residing Nursing Homes: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pain is common in the elderly. Distraction is one of the important uses of cognitive-behavioral techniques and humor is one of the distraction techniques used in pain control. The aim of the present study was to determine the impact of humor therapy (HT) on quality and fear of pain in nursing homes. Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial study on 55 elderly who had experienced chronic pain for at least 3 months and residing in nursing homes in Mashhad, Iran, 2016. The sampling was of convenience type as well as random allocation of nursing homes to two groups; the one receiving HT (n = 28) and a control group (n = 27) living in two similar nursing homes. The experimental group received 6 sessions of humor therapy over 6 weeks and the control group received the routine care. To this end, pain quality and fear of pain were assessed at the first, after the 3rd and 6th sessions in both groups respectively using the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Fear of Pain Questionnaire. The main data were also compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Total pain quality and fear of pain before the study was homogeneous in both groups (P > 0.05); but after 6th sessions in humor therapy the score of total pain quality decrease from 3.5 ± 1.1 to 2.4±0.7 (P 0.05). Conclusions: HT as a low-cost method can be an effective way to reduce the quality and fear of pain in elderly pain.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".