The Affirmation – Tapping on Pain Perception and Serotonin Serum Level of Post – Caesarian Section patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Affirmation - tapping interventions have been shown to reduce pain complaints in post-operative patients completing conventional treatment. This is thought to be due to serotonin performance but clinical studies have not been conducted. The aim was to compare the mean perception of the pain reported by post-operative patients given affirmation- tapping treatment with another treatment as a complementary nursing intervention. This was to see if the performance of the serotonin serum level is different from in other treatments.Methods: We used a randomized post-test only control group design carried out in parallel in post-caesarean section patients. The sample totaled 40 patients divided into four groups (10 in affirmation, 10 in tapping, 10 in affirmation-tapping and 10 in the control). They were obtained through simple random sampling. The instruments included affirmation-tapping guidelines, Elisa kits and the McGill - Melzack Pain Questionnaire short-form (MPQsf). The independent variable was the intervention of affirmation-tapping and the dependent variables were pain perception and serotonin level. The data was analyzed using simple linear regression.Results: The average variant of the serotonin levels in the affirmation-tapping treatment group was higher and thus differed significantly from the other groups.Conclusion: Affirmation-tapping as a complementary nursing intervention can increase the serotonin serum levels of the post-caesarean section patients by complementing conventional treatments. Participant pain complaints were lowest in the affirmation-tapping group with the highest serotonin levels present and these were significantly different to the other groups. Affirmation – tapping was recommended as a complementary intervention in nursing post-operative patients that complements conventional treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".