Effectiveness of group therapy based on acceptance and commitment therapy on quality of life in HIV patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evaluations indicate low levels of quality of life in people with HIV. Can Acceptance and Commitment Therapy improve quality of life for these patients? Aims: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of group therapy based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on enhancing quality of life in people with HIV. Method: The research method was experimental with pretest -posttest with control group and follow up design. The statistical population included 42 men with HIV in Alborz province who were volunteered to participate in this project in spring 98. Twenty patients were selected by random sampling and were divided into intervention and control groups (n=10 each). The intervention group participated in 12 weekly intervention sessions. The sessions were based on the Einberg (2016) Package. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (Cohen et al, 1995) was administered in two groups. Mixed ANOVA was performed to evaluate the results. Results: The results showed that the effect of group therapy based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on increasing quality of life (p= 0/029) was significant. The results were also significant in the physical (p= 0/024) and psychological (p= 0/007) subscales. But in the subscales of general attitude (p= 0/12), existential (p= 0/067) and support (p= 0/055) was not significant. Conclusions: As a result, using group therapy based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy can improve the quality of life in people with HIV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".