The Effect of a Combination of Warm Water Foot Baths and Lavender Essential Oil Aromatherapy on Sleep Quality in Adult Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is one of the deadliest diseases in the world that can attack anyone, both young and old. Hypertension sufferers have poorer sleep quality compared to those with normal blood pressure. This research is a quantitative research using a Quasi-Experimental Design. This research aimed to determine the effect of a combination of warm water foot baths and lavender essential oil aromatherapy on sleep quality in adults with hypertension. Wilcoxon test results (p = 0.004), which means that there is an effect of combination therapy with warm water foot baths and lavender essential oil aromatherapy on the sleep quality of adults with hypertension. The feet have many thermoreceptors and a high density of capillaries. Soaking your feet in warm water can help prepare the body for sleep naturally and quickly trigger peripheral vasodilation. There are two main ways to apply aromatherapy: topically and through inhalation. Lavender essential oil is said to activate the limbic system, especially the hippocampus and amygdala. Combining warm foot baths with aromatherapy would be a rational approach to the management of sleep disorders in adult patients with hypertension.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".