PGWBPsychological General Well Being
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Similarly there was highly significant increase in the PGWB score from 86.78 [+ or -] 5.78 to 96.44 [+ or -] 2.97 (p<0.001) and decrease in HAM-A score from 49.26 [+ or -] 5.44 to 31.60 [+ or -] 2.57 (p<0.001) indicating highly significant decrease in anxiety in the students.
PGWB and HAM-A, but in this group there was no significant improvement seen in PGIMSI and HAM-A score.
Pearson's correlation was calculated to find out the correlation between LF/HF power % with the PGIMS PGWB and HAM-A score both before and after the study in both the groups.
Central opioid system may also be involved in producing the changes seen in PGWB and HAM-A scores in pranayam group, although it is not known if pranaymaic exercises stimulates the central opioid system as there is no study investigating the role of central opioid system in producing the beneficial effects of pranayama.
Improvements in the BAI, PGWB index, and CGI-S scores were observed, favoring chamomile over placebo.
For non-parametric data related to the PGWB, Mann Whitney U tests were used to test for differences between treatment groups at baseline and final, and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests were use to test for the effect of treatment on dependant variables.
Statistical analysis and results: Table 1 shows that in the whole group the mean value of PGWBS before yoga was 69.97 and after yoga it was 80.06 with p value of 0.000.
Table 2 shows number and percentage of subjects in various ranges of PGWBS score before and after yoga.
It was observed that there was marked increase in the mean values of PGWBS score after yoga in all the three groups and this increase was significant statistically as denoted by p values.
WOMAC Index dimension scores were calculated by summing the individual symptom values relevant to each dimension, with the final battery (total symptom score) calculated as the sum of these, and PGWB dimension values were similarly calculated, as previously described (Bowling, 1997, 2001).
There were no significant differences in mean baseline PGWB Index values between groups.
In addition, the difference between overall PGWB scores tended toward significance (P = 0.06 8).