Effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques (AFT) and Aromatherapy Oils in Reducing Anxiety in Third Trimester Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies show that the global incidence of anxiety is 23% in Alberta, Canada, 15,6% in Germany, and 49% in Pakistan. Anxiety in pregnancy is related to depression which affects the mother and baby, besides that it can pose risks to the mother's mental health such as increasing the risk of depression after giving birth. Objective: to find out the Effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) and Aromatherapy Oils in Reducing Anxiety in Third Trimester Pregnant Women. Method: using the true experimental design method using one group design, pre test-post test design, sampling technique using purposive sampling. Pregnant women will have their Anxiety scale measured using the State Anxiety Invantory Score (STAI), data analysis is carried out univariately to describe the frequency distribution and bivariately using the Wilcoxon test. Results: The average anxiety score for the Pre Test was 2,31 and the Post Test was 1,31. The results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic show that the value is ρ < 0,001. Conclusions: The effectiveness of Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) and aromatherapy oils based on the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistical test can be seen with a value of ρ < 0,001, which means it is proven to reduce anxiety in third trimester pregnant women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".