Effect of Breathing Exercises on Symptoms Intensity and Quality of Life among Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chemotherapy is a common treatment for cancer, yet it often causes adverse side effects that significantly compromise a patient’s health and quality of life. This necessitates the exploration of complementary therapies to mitigate these impacts. This study was based on the premise that non-pharmacological interventions, specifically breathing exercises, could offer a viable adjunctive approach to address chemotherapy-related symptoms and enhance patient well-being. Methods: A quasi-experimental research design was employed at the inpatient chemotherapeutic ward of Ismailia Teaching Oncology Hospital. The study recruited a purposive sample of 60 patients. Three tools were utilized: one for sociodemographic data, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System to quantify symptom intensity, and the Quality-of-Life Scale to assess patient well-being. The intervention group practiced breathing exercises, while the control group received routine care. Results: The findings revealed a statistically significant reduction in symptom intensity and a notable enhancement in quality of life for the group that participated in the breathing exercise intervention. These positive outcomes were observed following a series of structured sessions. Conclusion: The incorporation of breathing exercises can effectively diminish symptom intensity and enhance the quality of life among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. This makes breathing exercises a recommended complementary and alternative medicine approach to be utilized alongside conventional medical treatments for chemotherapy-related symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".