Comparison of the Effects of Auditory and Visual Distraction on the Pain and Anxiety of Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background & Aims: Today, the rate of kidney diseases and urinary tract stones is on the rise.A common treatment method for urinary tract stones is the use of extracorporeal lithotripsy using shock waves, which may cause pain in the patients when the waves penetrate the skin.Pain could affect hemodynamic parameters and cause restlessness and movement in the patients, thereby disrupting the lithotripsy process.To reduce the pain in these patients, pharmacological methods such as the injection of various narcotic and non-steroidal analgesics are used.In addition to these medications, non-pharmacological methods such as mental distraction could effectively decrease patients' pain during painful procedures.Previous studies have indicated that mental distraction methods could variable affect pain relief and reduce anxiety in patients during different painful techniques.The present study aimed to compare the effects of visual and auditory distraction the pain and anxiety of these patients. Materials & Methods:This three-group quasi-experimental study (auditory intervention, visual intervention, and control) was conducted with a pretest-posttest design at Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Iran in 2019.The sample population included the eligible candidates of extracorporeal lithotripsy referring to the lithotripsy unit of Ayatollah Kashani Hospital in Shahrekord in 2019 for outpatient treatment.The patients were selected via non-random sampling from the crusher candidates to achieve the sample size based on the inclusion criteria.The inclusion criteria were the initial diagnosis of kidney stones, age range of 20-50 years, auditory and visual health, and no history of using anti-anxiety medications and painkillers.The exclusion criteria were pain intolerance during the procedure, higher blood pressure than 140/90 mmHg, receiving drug therapy, drug addiction, history of mental and respiratory diseases, and previous experience of stone crushing.Data were collected before and after the intervention using the demographic information questionnaire, McGill short-form pain questionnaire, and Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory.Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 16 using descriptive statistics (frequency, frequency percentage, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (paired t-test, t-test, Pearson's correlation-coefficient, and analysis of variance).Results: The Smirnov-Kolmogorov test showed that the study variables were normal (P>0.05).In total, 48% of the patients were male, and 42% were female.In terms of age, the research units were aged 23-51 years.The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square indicated that demographic variables were not significantly different in the three study groups (P>0.05).The mean pain in the studied units was not considered significant in the study groups before the intervention (P=0.13), while this mean value was significant between the groups after the intervention (P<0.001).The lowest pain level during the intervention was observed in the visual intervention group, and Tukey's post-hoc test for the difference between the groups also showed that the mean anxiety in the visual intervention group was significantly lower compared to the auditory group (P<0.001).In addition, paired t-test demonstrated that the mean pain was significant in the intervention groups before and after the intervention, and the intervention was effective in the intervention groups (visual and auditory).However, no significant difference was observed in the mean pain before and after the intervention in the control group (P>0.05).No significant correlations were observed between the mean pain and anxiety with the demographic variables (P>0.05),mean anxiety (P=0.84), and pain of the patients (P=0.13)before the intervention in different group,
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».