Patient Education and Informed Consent in Head and Neck Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of an educational intervention, in the form of printed material, on patient knowledge and recall of possible risks from parotidectomy or thyroidectomy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted during a 9-month period. SETTING: Head and neck surgery clinic of an academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-five consecutive patients older than 16 years who were undergoing thyroidectomy or parotidectomy at the head and neck surgery clinic were recruited. Four patients were excluded from analysis because their follow-up interview was not within the required limits. INTERVENTION: At the preoperative visit during the routine consent process, both groups received a verbally delivered checklist of risks specific for the surgery to be performed. The intervention group was also given a pamphlet with written information accompanied by illustrations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effectiveness of the educational intervention was determined by comparing the average rate of risk recall between the intervention and control groups. The effects of age, sex, level of education, and time between the consent and recall interviews on recall rate were also assessed. RESULTS: The overall risk recall rate for both procedures was 39.1%. The recall rate of the intervention group was 50.3% compared with 29.5% for the control group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention consistently improved risk recall for all patients regardless of age, sex, and level of education. Patients' ability to recall potential risks was significantly increased by an educational intervention; all patients would benefit from this intervention.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it