Investigation of the effect of dance therapy on balance, risk of falls, body awareness and functionality in females with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of dance therapy on balance, risk of falls, body awareness and functionality in females with chronic low back pain. Forty females were divided into two groups and randomly allocated to either the dance therapy group or the control group. The dance therapy group received an individualized dance therapy programme consisting of choreographies from different dance genres three days per week for eight weeks. The control group received a conventional exercise training programme for a total of 20 sessions. All participants underwent assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of their respective programmes. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was employed for pain assessment. Functionality was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index, while body awareness was measured using the Body Awareness Rating Questionnaire. The Timed Up and Go test and the Y balance test were employed for the assessment of the risk of falls and balance, respectively. Both groups were asked to rate their satisfaction with the treatment on an 10-point Likert scale after completion of the treatment. Significant improvements were found in all parameters tested in both groups after completion of the treatments (p < 0.05). However, the dance therapy programme was more effective than conventional treatment in improving functionality, body awareness, balance, and pain and reducing the risk of falls (p < 0.05). The results indicated that satisfaction with treatment was greater in the dance therapy group than in the control group (p < 0.05). Dance therapy can be an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain, improving balance, body awareness, functionality, and reducing the risk of falls.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".