The impact on physical performance, pain and psychological wellbeing of chronic low back pain patients during 12-weeks of equine- facilitated therapy intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equine - Facilitated Therapy (EFT), an equine environment, and horses themselves can meet many physical and mental health needs beyond diagnostic categories. The horse's ability to produce a walk-like movement and the participant's ability to connect to non-judgemental living creatures, both of which can benefit participation and construct a positive self-image for chronic pain patients. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of EFT on perceived physical performance, level of pain, pain acceptance, depression and anxiety, and quality of life within a 12-week intervention for chronic low back pain (LBP) patients. Twenty-two LBP patients received EFT led by physical therapists as part of the public health services. A mixed method design combining quantitative and qualitative methods was employed to detect the outcome of the intervention. The data were collected via questionnaires, interviews, and patient data repositories. An interview was voluntary for participants and included questions of one's health, visits to the pain clinic during 6 months and an open-ended question about the intervention. The coding of the data was completed independently by two persons using thematizing. The welfare of the attending horses was taken into consideration in basic training and for the research setting. Statistical analysis and paired t -tests detected the changes during a 12-week intervention. The results suggest a significant increase in Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) levels of satisfaction with self-selected performances. The Raitasalo's version of Beck's Depression Inventory (RBDI) level of anxiety and Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) did not change, whereas a decline in the amount of perceived RBDI depression was found combined with increased levels of SF-36 Mental Change Scores and COPM satisfaction with performance. Only two of the 22 participants returned with reoccurring symptoms after 6 months to the pain clinic. The participant interviews revealed three important domains of experience during coding: physical-, psychological-, and social that link to the research question and suggest impact for the recovery from the human-animal interaction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".