Is Guided Imagery Effective in Reducing Pain and Anxiety in the Postoperative Total Joint Arthroplasty Patient?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of guided imagery as an intervention to reduce pain and anxiety in patients undergoing a total joint arthroplasty. SAMPLE: A total of 121 patients scheduled for elective total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: The design for this study was a 2-group quasi-experimental design. The intervention group listened to a guided imagery CD containing a message to develop a sense of relaxation and harmony. The intervention and control groups were compared on self-reported pain and anxiety levels postoperatively on Days 1, 2, and 3. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pain and anxiety levels between the groups. However, the intervention group had lower levels of anxiety and pain at all time points. Both groups followed a similar anxiety and pain pattern with the highest reported levels at Day 2. CONCLUSIONS: Conduct further research of guided imagery as an intervention for reducing pain and anxiety utilizing randomized controlled trials with a diverse sample of patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".