↓ Skip to main content

Auriculoterapia verdadeira e placebo para enfermeiros estressados: ensaio clínico randomizado

Overview of attention for article published in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Auriculoterapia verdadeira e placebo para enfermeiros estressados: ensaio clínico randomizado
Published in
Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, June 2018
DOI 10.1590/s1980-220x2017030403334
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana Miyuki do Prado, Leonice Fumiko Sato Kurebayashi, Maria Julia Paes da Silva

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of experimental auriculotherapy and placebo auriculotherapy with sham points for the treatment of stress in nurses of a charity hospital in São Paulo. Randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. The sample consisted of 168 nurses with medium and high stress levels according to the List of Stress Symptoms (LSS). The participants were randomized to three groups: Auriculotherapy (G1), Placebo (G2) and Control (G3). Groups 1 and 2 received 12 sessions, twice a week. The points used in Group 1 were: Shenmen and Brainstem; in Group 2 the points were: External Ear and Face Area. The three groups were evaluated at baseline, after eight sessions, 12 sessions and in a follow-up (after 15 days). Group 1 achieved a 43% reduction and a 1.81 Cohen d index (high effect), presenting statistical difference after eight sessions, maintained in the follow-up evaluation (p <0.001), according to Analysis of Variance. Group 2 achieved a 26% reduction, with Cohen's d index of 0.86 (great effect), achieving a difference after 12 sessions (p<0.001), maintained in the follow-up (p <0.05). The G3 did not present stress reduction. Experimental auriculotherapy achieved greater stress reduction among nurses, but there was no statistical difference between the two intervention groups. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials: RBR-req2792.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Psychology 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 30%