A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effects of Guided Imagery on Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension occurs in nearly 10% of pregnancies, and is associated with infant and maternal morbidity and mortality. Prior studies of non-pregnant adults have demonstrated the effectiveness of a variety of relaxation therapies in reducing blood pressure. A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted, the purposes of which were 1) to provide preliminary evidence regarding the usefulness of guided imagery (GI) in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive pregnant women, and 2) to answer feasibility questions for a larger trial. \n\tPregnant women with hypertension prior to 37 weeks gestation (n = 69) were randomized to either 15-minute periods of guided imagery (n = 34), or of quiet rest (QR) (n = 35), twice daily for four weeks or until delivery, whichever came first. Daytime ambulatory mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic and diastolic blood pressures, anxiety, rest and GI use were measured weekly, to a maximum of four weeks. Sixty women completed at least one week in the study; 46.4% completed four weeks. Compliance was excellent. \n\tIntention to treat analysis was used. In the unadjusted analysis, women allocated to GI had significantly lower average daytime ambulatory mean MAP elevations from baseline to their last week of study participation than women allocated to quiet rest (GI: M = 1.58 mmHg, SD = 7.63; QR: M = 5.93 mmHg, SD = 6.55; t = 2.36, p = .02). However, the effect was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.14) when adjusted for baseline mean arterial pressure and gestation. There was no statistically significant difference in the numbers of women who were prescribed antihypertensive medication after randomization (GI: n = 16, QR: n = 13, X2 = 0.74, p = .46). There was also no evidence of an effect of guided imagery on anxiety.\n\tNearly 90% (n = 26) of the guided imagery group indicated they would use it again, either in a subsequent pregnancy or during stressful life events. Given the ease of use, low cost, acceptability to women, and lack of risk of guided imagery, an adequately-powered randomized controlled trial is warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".