Effectiveness of Integrating Quality of Life-Based Therapy and Phototherapy on Emotion Regulation, Depression, and Anxiety in Psychosomatic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research was conducted to examine the effectiveness of integrating quality of life-based therapy and phototherapy on improving emotion regulation and reducing depression and anxiety in psychosomatic disorder patients in Isfahan city. This study was quasi-experimental, and its design was experimental and control with pre-test, post-test, and follow-up. The statistical population consisted of psychosomatic patients in Isfahan city. The statistical sample included 30 patients with psychosomatic disorders, who were conveniently selected and non-randomly assigned into two groups: experimental (15 participants) and control (15 participants). The research tools included: Gratz's Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (2004), Beck's Depression Inventory (1990), and Beck's Anxiety Inventory (1990). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (analysis of variance with repeated measures) were used for data analysis. The results indicated that integrating quality of life-based therapy and phototherapy was effective in improving emotion regulation, depression, and anxiety.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".