| Literature DB >> 32982267 |
Ni Luh Putu Thrisna Dewi1, Muhamad Thohar Arifin2, Suhartini Ismail3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The quality of life in stroke patients is vital for survival. Nowadays, studies that show a decrease in quality of life in post-stroke patients are increasing. Various non-pharmacological modalities were explored in the past to improve rehabilitation. However, the study about the effects of religious mantra and its combination with the modern technique was lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to analyse the effects of Gayatri Mantra and Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) on quality of life (QOL) of post-stroke patients.Entities:
Keywords: quality of life; religion; stroke
Year: 2020 PMID: 32982267 PMCID: PMC7500173 DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S266580
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc ISSN: 1178-2390
Figure 1Flow of patients through the study for Gayatri Mantra and Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
Baseline Characteristics of Subjects
| Baseline Characteristics | Intervention Group | Control Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |||
| Age | 50–55 | 13 (56.5) | 9 (39.1) | 0.230 |
| 56–60 | 10 (43.5) | 14 (60.9) | ||
| Gender | Male | 14 (60.9) | 15 (65.2) | 0.760 |
| Female | 9 (39.1) | 8 (34.8) | ||
| Education | Elementary | 6 (26.1) | 7 (30.4) | 0.910 |
| Junior High School | 5 (21.7) | 6 (26.1) | ||
| Senior High School | 7 (30.4) | 5 (21.7) | ||
| University | 5 (21.7) | 11 (21.7) | ||
| Occupation | Self-employed | 13 (56.5) | 11 (47.8) | 0.550 |
| Public Servant | 10 (43.5) | 12 (52.2) | ||
| Period of Disease | < 1 year | 11 (47.8) | 10 (43.5) | 0.760 |
| ≥ 1 year | 12 (52.2) | 13 (56.5) | ||
| Motoric Impairment | Left Hemiparesis | 13 (56.5) | 10 (43.5) | 0.370 |
| Right Hemiparesis | 10 (43.5) | 13 (56.5) | ||
Quality of Life Indicators Between Intervention and Control Groups
| Variables | Intervention Group | Control Group | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Posttest | Pretest | Posttest | |||||||
| Median | Range | Median | Range | Median | Range | Median | Range | |||
| Self-care (SC) | 11 | 9–14 | 11 | 9–15 | 0.010 | 11 | 10–12 | 11 | 10–12 | >0.999 |
| Vision (V) | 11 | 8–15 | 11 | 10–15 | 0.030 | 12 | 10–13 | 12 | 10–13 | 0.310 |
| Language (L) | 15 | 10–22 | 16 | 14–22 | 0.020 | 15 | 12–18 | 15 | 12–18 | >0.999 |
| Mobility (M) | 13 | 10–17 | 15 | 12–18 | <0.001 | 14 | 12–18 | 14 | 12–18 | 0.310 |
| Work Productivity (W) | 11 | 10–14 | 12 | 10–14 | 0.020 | 11 | 10–14 | 11 | 10–14 | >0.999 |
| Upper Extremity (UP) | 13 | 10–15 | 14 | 11–18 | <0.001 | 13 | 10–14 | 12 | 10–15 | >0.999 |
| Thinking (T) | 12 | 10–15 | 12 | 10–15 | 0.010 | 11 | 9–13 | 11 | 9–13 | 0.310 |
| Personality (P) | 12 | 10–15 | 12 | 10–15 | 0.020 | 11 | 9–13 | 11 | 9–13 | 0.310 |
| Mood (M) | 13 | 11–16 | 14 | 11–16 | 0.010 | 12 | 9–15 | 12 | 9–15 | 0.420 |
| Family Role (FR) | 12 | 10–15 | 12 | 10–15 | 0.030 | 12 | 9–13 | 11 | 10–13 | >0.999 |
| Social Role (SR) | 12 | 10–17 | 12 | 10–17 | 0.020 | 11 | 9–13 | 11 | 10–13 | 0.180 |
| Energy (E) | 11 | 9–15 | 12 | 10–16 | <0.001 | 11 | 10–13 | 11 | 10–13 | 0.520 |
| Quality of Life (QoL) | 148 | 142–169 | 152 | 147–175 | <0.001 | 142 | 135–161 | 142 | 136–161 | 0.140 |
The Difference in Quality of Life Between Groups
| Groups | Mean Rank | Sum of Rank | Z score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | 33.11 | 761.50 | −5.27 | <0.001 |
| Control Group | 13.89 | 319.50 |