Effectiveness of Basic Body Awareness Therapy on Body Awareness, Pain, Disability and Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim While there are several conservative therapy methods used for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there remains a need for more holistic approaches. This pilot study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Basic Body Awareness Therapy (BBAT) in patients with CLBP. Methods Twenty-eight patients with CLBP, 14 in the Conventional Therapy (CT) group and 14 in the BBAT group, were included in our study. Both groups received CT for 6 weeks, which included electrotherapy, hot pack, and general exercises. The BBAT group received BBAT in addition to CT. The Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) was used to assess pain, the SF-12 was used to evaluate quality of life and the Awareness Body Chart (ABC), Body Awareness Questionnaire (BAQ) and Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaires (FreBAQ) were used to evaluate body awareness. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Physical Impairment Index were used to assess disability. Results Greater improvements were observed in BBAT group compared to CT group in the emotional index and total scores of the SF-MPQ, as well as the SF-12 mental health scores ( p < .05). BBAT produced greater improvements in body awareness values for the cervical-lumbar region, chest/abdomen, back, shoulder, thigh/hip, lower leg, and overall score of the ABC compared to CT ( p < .05). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in the FreBAQ and BAQ scores ( p > .05). Conclusion In patients with CLBP, the addition of BBAT to CT resulted in positive outcomes such as increased body awareness, decreased pain, and improved mental health.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".