Effectiveness of body awareness therapy on pain and pain coping strategies in postmenopausal women: A randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveOur study aimed to compare the effectiveness of adding Basic Body Awareness Therapy (BBAT) to Therapeutic Exercises (TE) and TE alone on pain and pain coping strategies in postmenopausal women (PmW).MethodsA total of 54 PmW with chronic musculoskeletal pain (cMSP) were randomly assigned to three groups. The first group underwent a combined intervention of BBAT and TE and the second group participated in a TE program 3 times a week for 12 weeks. The control group didn't receive any treatment. Number of pain dimensions and pain severity of the participants were assessed with the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (MG-SF), body awareness levels were assessed with Body Awareness Questionnaire (BAQ) and pain coping strategies were assessed with the Pain Coping Inventory (PCI).ResultsIn this study significant differences were found in pain intensity, number of pain dimensions, and PCI scores between the BBAT + TE and TE groups compared to the Control group, while the BBAT + TE group showed significant results in BAQ scores compared to the TE group.ConclusionFor PmW, participating in BBAT combined with TE program can be beneficial for pain parameters and body awareness. BBAT seems to be an equivalent and effective option for enhancing body awareness.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Randomized controlled trial of body awareness therapy for pain; a trial, not a study of trials.
The trial evaluates body-awareness therapy for musculoskeletal pain.
RCT of body awareness therapy for postmenopausal pain; clinical rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".