The effect of relaxation and cognitive counseling intervention on blood pressure and quality of life among pregnant women with chronic hypertension – randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Hypertension is one of the most significant chronic diseases in all people, especially pregnant women, which can pose many risks to the mother and fetus.It also reduces the quality of life (QOL) of pregnant women.The aim of this study was to compare the effect of relaxation and cognitive counseling on blood pressure and quality of life among hypertensive pregnant women.Material and methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 60 hypertensive pregnant women.Subjects were randomly assigned to three groups: cognitive (n = 20), relaxation (n = 20), and controls (n = 20).The blood pressure of the participants was measured using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer, and their quality of life was assessed by using World Health Organization QOL (WHOQOL) scale, before and after the intervention.Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 with chi-square, one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc and paired sample t test.Results: None of the study variables were significantly different between three study groups at baseline.Systolic and diastolic blood pressure showed a decrease in both intervention and control groups.The quality of life score showed an increase in all dimensions of quality of life in the intervention groups.However, there was no significant change in the control group.The increase in quality of life score in the cognitive counseling group was larger than in the relaxation group (p < 0.01). Conclusions:The results of this study showed that cognitive counseling and relaxation can effectively improve quality of life of women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".