MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406680506 · doi:10.5334/gh.1390

Spirituality-Based Intervention in Hypertension: EFfects on Blood PrEssure and EndotheliaL Function—FEEL Trial Results

2025· article· en· W4406680506 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Emília Figueiredo Teixeira, Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso, Andréa Araújo Brandão, Ana Luíza Lima Sousa, Roberto Esporcatte, Mário Henrique Elesbão de Borba, Ana Clara Neri Ávila Baleeiro, Enzo Inumaru, Giovana Leal, Henrique Soares de Araújo Pereira Farias, Juliana Alves de Souza, L. Silva, Matheus Canguçu de Paiva Queiroz, Frederico Rafael Moreira, Priscila Valverde de Oliveira Vitorino, John W. Eikelboom, Álvaro Avezum

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpiritualityIntervention (counseling)Blood pressureFunction (biology)Randomized controlled trialCardiologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that spirituality improves patient outcomes, however, this has undergone only limited evaluation in randomized trials. Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Objectives: To evaluate whether a spirituality-based intervention, compared to a control group, can reduce blood pressure (BP) and improve endothelial function after 12 weeks in patients with mild or moderate hypertension (HTN). Methods: Open randomized controlled trial of adults with stage I or II hypertension. Following baseline evaluation, including lifestyle questionnaires, and measurements of office and central blood pressure (BP), home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and flow mediated dilation (FMD), patients were randomized to a spirituality-based intervention, which included training for forgiveness, gratitude, optimism, and life purpose delivered by daily WhatsApp communications, or to the control group (CG). Main outcomes were between group difference in change from baseline to 12 weeks in office and central BP, HBPM and FMD, using t-tests, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for baseline differences, and, in addition, missing data imputation as a sensitivity analysis. Results: Fifty-one patients were randomized to spirituality-based intervention and 49 to control group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Spirituality training, compared with control, improved 7.6 mmHg office systolic blood pressure (SBP), 4.1 mmHg central SBP and 4.1 percentage points FMD. Compared to control group, t-test demonstrated statistical significance for office SBP (-7.04 mmHg, p = 0.047) and FMD (7.46 percentage points, p < 0.001), and ANCOVA adjustment for baseline differences showed statistical significance for central SBP (-6.99 mmHg, p = 0.038) and FFMD (7.95 percentage points, p < 0.001) There was no significant effect on HBPM. Conclusion: A spirituality-based intervention was associated with improved control of office SBP and FMD. These findings will be prospectively evaluated in a nationwide larger and well-powered RCT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal HeartSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207