Does mindful breathing reduce negative symptoms in palliative care patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this selective EBM review is to determine whether or not “does mindful breathing reduce negative symptoms in palliative care patients?” Study Design: A systematic review of three non blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 2011 and 2021. Data Sources: All three RCTs were discovered using PubMed. The articles were published in peer-reviewed journals and selected based on relevance to the research question. Outcome Measured: The change in negative symptoms after mindful breathing was measured differently in each study. In one study, patients rated their suffering 0-10 using a pictogram. In a second study, distress was self-reported using a thermometer rating 0-10. In the third study, negative symptoms were rated 0-10 using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Results: The RCT by Beng et al. found a significant change in suffering for both the intervention group and supportive listening control group (p = 0.00), but the mindful breathing group had a higher mean change from baseline by 0.84. Look et al. showed mindful breathing caused a significant reduction in total symptom score compared to the control (p = 0.005), as measured on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Lastly, Ng et al. demonstrated a significant decrease in distress with mindful breathing compared to the control (p Conclusion: All three studies in this review demonstrated that mindful breathing significantly reduced negative symptoms in palliative care patients. Although the treatment effect was small, mindful breathing is an effective treatment to supplement palliative care delivery. Future studies are needed to investigate the duration of mindful breathing and long-term effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".