The process of learning the autogenic training relaxation technique and its benefits on the wellness of people living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various mind-body practices are used by people living with HIV to promote their general well-being. Among these is autogenic training (AT), a self-guided relaxation technique requiring regular practice for observable benefits. However, little has been written about the process of learning this technique, which is obviously a prerequisite to regular practice. This study therefore aims to describe the process by which people living with HIV learn AT. METHODS: The study is a descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and a thematic analysis with a mixed approach. Fourteen participants living with HIV completed sessions to learn autogenic training over a period of 3 months. RESULTS: The process of learning AT was approached through three themes: initiating the learning process, taking ownership of the technique, and observing its benefits on wellness. To initiate learning, participants had to express a need to take action on an aspect of their well-being and their openness to complementary approaches to care. Taking ownership of the technique was facilitated by guidance from the nurse researcher, the participants' personal adaptations to overcome barriers to their practice, regular practice, and rapid observation of its benefits. Finally, the participants reported the observation of benefits on their wellness, including personal development, mainly in terms of the creative self, the essential self, and the coping self. This perception of the technique's benefits was part of the learning process, as it contributed both to the participants' ownership of the technique and to reinforcing their AT practice. CONCLUSIONS: People living with HIV see learning AT as a progressive process, in which wellness is a major outcome and a contributing factor in developing a regular practice.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".