Effect of circular dances on quality of life of intestinal ostomized persons: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Circular dances have several benefits to the physical and mental health status of patients. few investigations analyze the effect of dances on the Quality of Life of intestinal ostomized patients. We assessed the effect of circular dances on quality of life of intestinal ostomized persons.Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial conducted with 73 individuals were randomly clustered in two major groups: I) Controls to which the standard practices were applied and II) Cases to which all the standard procedures were applied but added the practices of circular dance. The Quality of life (QoL) score were assessed by the validated questionnaire COH-QOL-OQ.Results: No significant differences between the domains’ average scores before the intervention. The correlation between the average scores has decreased on the experimental group after the intervention suggesting that the circular dances managed to improve QoL scores.Conclusions: Circular dance practices on ostomized individuals contributes to a better QoL and represents an improvement on nursing care quality. Furthermore, the permanent review of nursing practices contributes significantly to the integral health care and better nursing services delivery to the ostomized individuals. Findings confirm the efficacy of circular dances to improve de Quality of Life of intestinal ostomized persons.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".