Systematic review protocol of yoga therapy as a modality in occupational therapy practice for adults experiencing mood disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mood disorders can have a negative impact on daily functioning because cognitive deficits are exacerbated when individuals experience associated symptoms. Nevertheless, yoga therapy has been found to have enhancing features to well-being and quality of life. Occupational therapists are well positioned to include yoga as a modality to benefit clients experiencing mood disorders. However, literature on yoga interventions for mood disorders is underdeveloped causing an inadequate understanding of the health benefits. Thus, the aim of this study is to gain further knowledge associated with the implications of yoga as an intervention to increase participation in activities of daily living and enhance the quality of life of individuals experiencing mood disorders. This review will answer the following research question: can yoga therapy be used as an effective modality in occupational therapy practice to manage symptomatology related to mood disorders through increasing engagement in daily tasks? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: OVID Medline, Embase as well as CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library (Wiley), APA PsycINFO and Scopus will be explored to adhere to the following criteria: (1) studies discussing adults diagnosed with mood disorders, specifically bipolar and related disorders or depressive disorders as stated in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5; (2) studies discussing implementation of yoga therapy; (3) a correlation between mood disorders and effectiveness of yoga therapy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable for this study, due to obtaining data from existing research articles. The completed manuscript will be submitted in a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021283157.
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 | 0.060 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.008 |
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".