Spirituality Studies 11-2 Fall 2025 47 Chanchal Surywanshi et al. 3.1.1 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Average Heart Rate Beat Per Minutes (AHRBPM) The post-intervention analysis showed a slight reduction in AHRBPM from 78.60 ± 10.07 to 75.93 ± 9.03; however, this change was statistically insignificant (p = 0.532), indicating that the observed decrease may not be attributed to the intervention with confidence. The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.27), with a 3.39% decrease in AHRBPM (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), post-intervention analysis showed a slight increase in AHRBPM from 75.23 ± 11.40 to 78.01 ± 10.96, which was also not statistically significant (p = 0.156). The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.24), with a 3.69% increase in AHRBPM (Table 3). Between-group (DG vs CG) comparison showed no statistically significant difference in AHRBPM at post-intervention (75.93 ± 9.03 vs 78.01 ± 10.96; p = 0.724). Although the percentage change and effect size were numerically greater in the DG compared to the CG, the difference was not statistically significant (Table 4). 3.1.2 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Standard Deviation R-R intervals (SDRR) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed an increase in the mean ± SD of Standard Deviation of R-R Intervals (SDRR) from 43.34 ± 17.44 to 50.09 ± 12.98. However, this increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.112), suggesting a possible trend but lacking conclusive evidence. The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.43), with a 15.57% increase in SDRR (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), SDRR increased slightly from 54.92 ± 22.02 to 57.68 ± 24.76, but this difference was statistically non-significant (p = 0.865), indicating a negligible change. The effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.11), with a 5.03% increase in SDRR (Table 3). Between-group comparison at post-intervention showed no statistically significant difference in SDRR between DG and CG (50.09 ± 12.98 vs 57.68 ± 24.76; p = 0.494). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the percentage change and effect size were greater in the DG compared to the CG, indicating a potentially meaningful trend favoring the intervention (Table 4). 3.1.3 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Coefficient of Variance of RR intervals (CVRR) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed an increase in the mean ± SD of Coefficient of Variance of RR intervals (CVRR) from 0.05 ± 0.02 to 0.06 ± 0.01. Although this change approached statistical significance (p = 0.069), it did not reach the conventional threshold (p < 0.05), suggesting a trend-level improvement in CVRR due to the intervention. The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.63), with a 20% increase in CVRR (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), CVRR increased from 0.06 ± 0.02 to 0.07 ± 0.02, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.140), indicating a modest and non-conclusive change. The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.50), with a 16.67% increase in CVRR (Table 3). Between-group post-intervention comparison revealed no statistically significant difference in CVRR between DG and CG (0.06 ± 0.01 vs 0.07 ± 0.02; p = 0.485). However, the percentage change and effect size were slightly higher in the DG compared to the CG, indicating a more favorable trend in the intervention group (Table 4). 3.1.4 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Standard Deviation of Successive Differences (SDSD) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed an increase in the mean ± SD of Standard Deviation of Successive Differences (SDSD) from 29.71 ± 12.36 to 38.54 ± 21.90. However, this change was not statistically significant (p = 0.427), suggesting a trend but not conclusive evidence of improvement. The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.49), with a 29.7% increase in SDSD (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), SDSD increased slightly from 45.65 ± 31.36 to 46.11 ± 32.14, which was also not statistically significant (p = 0.955), indicating a negligible change. The effect size was negligible (Cohen’s d = 0.01), with only a 1.00% increase in SDSD (Table 3). Between-group comparison post-intervention revealed no statistically significant difference in SDSD between DG and CG (38.54 ± 21.90 vs 46.11 ± 32.14; p = 0.633). Nevertheless, the percentage increase and effect size were notably higher in the DG compared to the CG, indicating a trend that favors the intervention group (Table 4).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==