Tai Chi/Qigong in Adults with Depression and Anxiety: A Pilot Retrospective Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Treatment options for individuals suffering from depression and anxiety are limited in terms of both accessibility and feasibility. Finding alternative, scalable, and cost-effective treatments remains important. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of a 13-week Tai Chi/qigong intervention in the treatment of depression and anxiety. Methods: Sixty-six adult psychiatric outpatients (mean age 47.83 ± 15.30 years) were recruited to participate in a 13-week Tai Chi/qigong program. Measures of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and insomnia (Athens Insomnia Scale-8 [AIS-8]) were compared pre- and post-intervention. Feasibility was measured using the Acceptance Feasibility Questionnaire. Results: Participants who completed the 13-week intervention (n = 31) reported significant reductions in depression (d = −0.67), anxiety (d = −0.70), and insomnia symptomatology. Participants who completed the Tai Chi/qigong intervention reported enjoying the intervention and exercises, and having little difficulty in setting a home practice. Conclusions: Findings suggest that Tai Chi/qigong interventions may be an accessible, well-tolerated, and cost-effective intervention for psychiatric outpatients suffering from depression and anxiety. Limitations from the pilot study identify the use of small sample sizes and lack of an active control group. Larger randomized control trials that include active control groups are warranted.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it