Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the phenomenon of infertility has psychosocial aspects in addition to disorder in physiological processes, one of the ways to cope with its psychological responses is mindedness-based cognitive therapy, which can improve quality of life and emotional self-efficacy in various groups of patients.The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on quality of life and emotional self-efficacy in infertile women of Koohdasht city.For this purpose, in a quasi-experimental study with pre-test and posttest design and a control group, 30 infertile women admitted to the infertility clinic in Koohdasht city were selected by convenience sampling and they were randomly assigned to two groups of experimental and control.First, each group was pre-tested using the World Health Organization's Quality of Life Questionnaire (1996) and Williams' Emotional Control Questionnaire (1997).Then, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was provided for experimental group based on the treatment protocol of Segal, Williams and Tisdale (2002) for 8 sessions in which each session lasted 90 minutes.After completion of the educational program, they were posttested.The results of multivariate covariance analysis indicated that group training of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was effective in quality of life and emotional self-efficacy in infertile women.The mean scores in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in control group (p <0.05).It could be stated that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is one of the methods for negative emotional catharsis, which can play an important role in improving the quality of life and emotional self-efficacy of the infertile 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.943 | 0.921 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".