Effects of Tai Chi and Qigong intervention on anxiety and stress in diabetic and hypertensive Brazilian patients: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of Tai Chi/Qigong practice over 13 weeks on anxiety and perceived stress levels in middle-aged or older Brazilian hypertensive and diabetic individuals assisted in a primary healthcare setting. METHODS: Ninety-one patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension diagnosed and followed up at a primary care center were randomized to the Tai Chi/Qigong intervention (n = 45) or waitlist (n = 46) group for 13 weeks. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at 6 and 13 weeks for anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI]) and stress (Perceived Stress Scale - PSS14). The primary endpoint of the study was 13 weeks. We used a linear mixed-effects model to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes, considering the treatment group and time as covariates and treating the subject as a random effect. RESULTS: Of the included 91 participants, 53 completed the 6-week assessment, and 42 completed the 13-week assessment. After 13 weeks, the Tai Chi/Qigong Group had lower scores for anxiety (STAI Estimate = -6.421; SD = 2.679; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = [-11.615,-1.224]; p = 0.018) and stress (PSS14 Estimate = -9.290; SD= 2.262; 95%CI= [-13.678,-4.906]; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A 13-week Tai Chi/Qigong intervention was efficacious in lowering anxiety and perceived stress scores in middle-aged and older patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension and can potentially be used in primary care centers as an adjunct therapy.Trial registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC), Identifier: U1111-1276-1787.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".