Effect of reminiscence therapy on quality of life and happiness degree of spouses of patients with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of reminiscence therapy on quality of life and happiness degree of spouses of patients with Parkinson's disease. Methods A total of 60 spouses of patients with Parkinson's disease were divided into experimental group and control group according to the hospital number with 30 cases each. Both groups received routine health education. In addition, reminiscence therapy was implemented in experimental group for 8 weeks. The spouses were investigated with The World Health Organization Quality Of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) and Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSH) before and after intervention. Results Before intervention, the scores of WHOQOL-BREF was (59.47±13.52) points in control group and (59.42±13.45) points in experimental group,and there was no significant difference(t=1.00, P >0.05). After intervention, the scores of WHOQOL-BREF was (60.12±13.48) points in control group and (72.65±11.32) points in experimental group,and there was significant difference (t= 3.45, P 0.05). After intervention, the scores of MUNSH was (22.75±6.24) points in control group and (34.56±5.78) points in experimental group,and there was significant difference(t=13.65, P < 0.01). Conclusions Reminiscence therapy could effectively improve the quality of life and happiness degree of spouses of patients with Parkinson's disease. Key words: Parkinson's disease; Quality of life; Reminiscence therapy; Happiness degree
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".