Postoperative Patient Education: A Systematic Review
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
INTRODUCTION: Knowledge of the effects of the specific approach, mode of delivery, and dose of educational interventions is essential to develop and implement effective postoperative educational interventions. Understanding the relationships of patient characteristics to outcomes is important for educational interventions. PURPOSE AND METHOD: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine who would most benefit from postoperative education, given in what type of approach and mode, and at what dose? The sample included 58 studies involving 5,271 participants. MAJOR RESULTS: Findings indicate that delivery of postoperative patient education through the individualization of content, use of combined media for delivery, provision of education on a one-on-one basis, and in multiple sessions is associated with improvement in educational/health outcomes. Samples that contained individuals younger than 50 years and higher percentages of males showed benefits in outcomes of moderate magnitude. APPLICATION: The results highlight the importance of attending to the characteristics of both the elements of postoperative educational interventions and the individual patients in the design and delivery of patient education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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