Outcomes and Perception of Lung Surgery with Implementation of a Patient Video Education Module: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although surgeons are constantly making efforts to improve efficiency of care, it is important to also optimize the patients' understanding and satisfaction with their surgical experience. We investigated the effect of a preoperative educational video on patient outcomes and perception of surgery. STUDY DESIGN: An educational video was developed outlining preoperative, operative, and postoperative expectations for patients undergoing pulmonary resection. A prospective study was conducted with 150 patients undergoing surgery with routine preoperative discussion (control group, January 2008 to June 2009) and 150 patients who were provided a supplemental video module (video or study group, September 2009 to October 2010) in addition to routine discussion. Demographics and outcomes data were recorded. Patients completed a pain survey (McGill Questionnaire) and a standardized patient satisfaction survey at discharge and within 1 month of operation. RESULTS: The groups were similar in sex, age, comorbidities, and forced expiratory volume, 1 second, % predicted. Length of hospital stay (5.19 ± 7.4 days vs 4.31 ± 4.3 days; p = 0.2) and hospital readmission rates (12 of 134 [9%] vs 5 of 103 [4.9%]; p = 0.3) were similar for the 2 groups. At discharge, patients in the study group reported less pain at rest (0.98 ± 0.09) vs controls (1.39 ± 0.11) (p = 0.01) with no difference in pain with lifting or coughing. Patients in the study group reported better overall satisfaction with their operation (2.14 ± 0.07 vs 1.85 ± 0.07; p = 0.02), believed they were better prepared (2.01 ± 0.07 vs 1.70 ± 0.06; p = 0.006), and reported less anxiety about the surgical experience (2.79 ± 0.10 vs 2.24 ± 0.09; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a pulmonary resection education module improves patient preparedness, relieves anxiety, and improves pain perception. Additional development and dissemination of a comprehensive education program can improve patients' experience with lung surgery and impact outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".