Effects of Visual and Audiovisual Distraction on Pain and Anxiety Among Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the effects of visual and audiovisual distraction on pain, anxiety, and procedure tolerance among patients undergoing colonoscopy. A prospective, randomized, controlled design was used with 180 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy. Subjects were randomly allocated into 3 groups: Group A received visual distraction, Group B received audiovisual distraction, Group C with routine care. Outcome variables included pain, anxiety, and willingness to undergo colonoscopy again if the procedure was to be repeated. No significant difference was found on the pain scores of the 3 groups. However, when groups A and B were further divided into groups A1, A2, A3 (low-, middle-, high-involvement groups), and B1, B2, B3 (low-, middle-, high-involvement groups) according to the level of distraction involvement, significant differences in pain scores were found between 7 groups (A1 and A3, A2 and A3, A1 and B3, A2 and B3, A3 and C, B1 and B3, B3 and C). The pain score of Group A3 was significantly lower than those of groups A1, A2, and C, and the pain score of Group B3 was significantly lower than those of groups B1 and C. The reduction of anxiety levels after procedure was insignificant between the 2 intervention groups and control group. The rates of willingness to undergo colonoscopy again if the procedure was to be repeated of the 2 intervention groups were significantly higher than that of the control group. Visual and audiovisual distraction is effective in promoting pain control for patients undergoing colonoscopy and improving their tolerance of the procedure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".