Role of Patient Information Handouts Following Operative Treatment of Ankle Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widespread evidence exists for directed patient information interventions (eg, pamphlets) in the setting of several orthopaedic conditions and interventions. Up until now, no study had assessed the role of these interventions in the management of patients following ankle fractures. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2007, 40 patients who suffered an operative ankle fracture were randomized to either a standard treatment group for an ankle fracture or an enhanced information group who received an American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons ankle fracture information pamphlet that explained postoperative routine at our institution and a physiotherapy handout depicting a standard protocol. Study participants were followed for 3 months clinically and radiographically. At the 6-week and 3-month intervals, study participants completed the Olerud-Molander Questionnaire and 2 questions regarding their level of satisfaction. The primary outcome measure was the Likert-scale-based survey question determining the level of satisfaction with the treating staff. RESULTS: Participants in the enhanced information group were more satisfied with treatment at 3 months (9.2 vs 6.3; P < .001). There were significant improvements in work/activity ability at 6 weeks (P = .01), but this advantage disappeared at 3 months (P = .24). No differences in postoperative complication rates were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Information enhancement in the form of pamphlets can be helpful in providing patients with accessible information in the postoperative period. While they do not seem to have a sustained impact on postoperative outcomes, handouts may enhance the interaction between staff and patient at postoperative visits, improving patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, appropriately powered randomized prospective cohort study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".