Chronic pain and insomnia are common and unbearable conditions that markedly affect the quality of life of an individual. Traditional pharmacological management usually results in limited long-term benefits and side effects, triggering exploration of non-pharmacological interventions. This study compared the effectiveness of two non-pharmacological interventions, yoga and progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), for reducing low back pain and insomnia severity in pregnant women over an 8-week period. A two-group, pre- and post-intervention quasi-experimental design was used. Both interventions were assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Participants attending two private healthcare facilities were enrolled into two intervention groups by site, yoga (n = 50) and PMR (n = 50). Both interventions produced significant within-group reductions in pain and insomnia scores, and the yoga group showed the larger improvement. In the yoga group, the mean pre-treatment NPRS score of 8.44 ± 1.15 was reduced to 1.42 ± 1.09 post-treatment (mean difference = 7.02, p < 0.001), and the mean ISI score of 23.02 ± 2.02 was reduced to 10.02 ± 2.10 (mean difference = 13.00, p < 0.001). In the PMR group, the mean pre-treatment NPRS score of 8.92 ± 1.03 was reduced to 5.62 ± 1.05 post-treatment (mean difference = 3.30, p < 0.001), and the mean ISI score of 23.84 ± 1.97 was reduced to 16.70 ± 1.30 (mean difference = 7.14, p < 0.001). Between-group comparison showed significantly greater improvement in the yoga group for both outcomes (p < 0.001). Both interventions were beneficial for reducing pain and insomnia, and the yoga group showed significantly greater improvement. With comparable baseline characteristics between groups, these findings support yoga as the more effective of the two programs, while acknowledging the absence of a usual-care control arm.

Proper patient positioning is important in digital mammography, as even minor deviations can compromise image quality, increase retake rates, and increase radiation exposure. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of conventional versus optimized positioning techniques on image clarity, radiation dose, and retake frequency in women undergoing routine mammographic screening. This comparative study was conducted over ten months at a private hospital and a diagnostic center in Sargodha and included 60 women aged 40 to 60 years who were undergoing digital mammography by using both conventional and optimized positioning techniques during the same session. Image quality was independently assessed by two blinded radiologists using a standardized five-point scale adapted from the perfect, good, moderate, inadequate (PGMI) classification (5 = perfect, 4 = good, 3 = moderate, 2 = suboptimal, 1 = inadequate), and the radiation dose per image and retake rates were recorded. The results of this study revealed that compared with the conventional technique, optimized positioning significantly improved the image quality score (mean: 4.28 ± 0.51 versus 3.62 ± 0.67; p < 0.001). The percentage of images rated as “perfect” or “good” increased under the optimized method, particularly in mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. Although the optimized technique resulted in a slight, nonsignificant increase in the radiation dose [2.11 ± 0.26 milligray (mGy) versus 2.04 ± 0.30 mGy; p = 0.139], it significantly reduced retake rates from 13.3% to 3.3% (McNemar exact p = 0.021). No significant period or carryover effect was detected between the two application-order subgroups (Mann–Whitney p = 0.16 for dose and p = 0.57 for image quality), supporting the adequacy of the 5-minute wash-out and the validity of the paired comparison. The study concluded that optimized patient positioning enhances image quality and reduces the need for repeat exposures without significantly increasing the radiation dose.