Spirituality-Based Intervention in Hypertension: EFfects on Blood PrEssure and EndotheliaL Function—FEEL Trial Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".