The effect of video-based education on patient anxiety in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We assess the effect of video-based education on patient anxiety during transrectal prostate biopsy. METHODS: A total of 246 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy were prospectively enrolled in the study. Group 1 included 123 patients who received both written and video-based education, while Group 2 included 123 patients who received only written instructions regarding prostate biopsies. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was used to assess state and trait anxiety (STAI-S/T) After completing the STAI-S and STAI-T questionnaires, all patients in Group 1 received written information and video-based education and they again completed STAI-S before the biopsy. On the contrary, after completing the STAI-S and STAI-T questionnaires, the patients in Group 2 received only written information and then they completed the STAI-S before the biopsy. Moreover, a visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain scores during digital rectal examination, probe insertion, periprostatic local anesthesic infiltration, and biopsy. RESULTS: No difference was noted between 2 groups regarding VAS scores. Comparing the 2 groups on baseline anxiety, we found that trait anxiety scores (STAI-T) were similar (p = 0.238). Pre-information STAI-S scores were similar in both groups (p = 0.889) and they both indicated high anxiety levels (score ≥42). While post-information STAI-S scores remained high in Group 2, post-information STAI-S scores significantly decreased in Group 1 (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Undergoing a prostate biopsy is stressful and may cause anxiety for patients. Video-based education about the procedure can diminish patient anxiety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".