Effect of Lavender Oil Leg Massage on Physical, Cognitive, and Psychological Variables of Patients with Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertension (HTN) is one of the most important non-communicable risk factors that cause cardiovascular diseases. Complementary therapies including massage and aromatherapy are widely used in the management of HTN. However, studies on aromatherapy massage in HTN are limited. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the effect of lavender oil leg massage on physical (cardiopulmonary function), cognitive, and psychological variables of patients with HTN. Materials and methods: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial, comprising 100 HTN patients aged 44.99 ± 5.39 years who were recruited and randomly divided into the study group (SG) and control group (CG), was conducted. The SG received lavender oil leg massage, while the CG received supine rest for 20 min. Outcome variables like blood pressure (BP), pulse rate (PR), random blood sugar (RBS) level, oxygen saturation, pulmonary function, oral temperature, trail making test (TMT) A and B, and state anxiety and mindfulness were assessed before and after the intervention. Results: The within-group analysis showed a significant improvement in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, PR, RBS, TMT-A, TMT-B, and state mindfulness both in the SG and CG. However, a significant reduction in state anxiety was observed only in the SG unlike the CG. Moreover, the between-group analysis showed a significant improvement in state mindfulness and state anxiety in the SG compared to the CG. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that lavender oil leg massage is effective in reducing BP and RBS, and improving cognitive function in hypertensive patients. In addition, it is more effective in reducing anxiety and improving mindfulness than rest in supine position in patients with HTN.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".