Women's Views Regarding Hypnosis for the Control of Surgical Pain in the Context of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess women's satisfaction with a hypnotic intervention for anxiety and pain management during a pregnancy-terminating procedure. METHODS: Women (N = 350) scheduled for first-trimester surgical abortion were randomly assigned to standard care or to a short, standardized hypno-analgesia intervention before and during the procedure. We assessed their individual use of the various hypnotic strategies proposed during the intervention and their views (likes/dislikes) about the hypnotic intervention, the pregnancy termination experience, and their participation in this randomized study. RESULTS: Mental imagery of a secure place was the strategy used by most women (71%) in the hypnosis group, but a significant proportion of them also used dissociation (42%) and focal analgesia (39%). Advantages of hypnosis over standard care were found in the patients' report that they could resume their normal activities right after being discharged from the hospital (72% in hypnosis vs. 56% in control group) and in their appreciation of the accompaniment (hypnotherapist vs. nurse) provided during the procedure (97% in hypnosis vs. 56% in control group). Among those who received hypnosis, 97% affirmed that they would recommend hypnosis to a friend for a similar procedure. More than 98% in both groups indicated they would again volunteer to participate in a study evaluating hypnosis for pain management. CONCLUSIONS: Women in the hypnosis group generally reported higher levels of satisfaction with various aspects of the procedure. This is consistent with the growing literature in favor of hypnotic interventions to improve pain management and care.
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".