Gender, Patient Comfort and the Neurosurgical Operating Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical patients may be unaware of components of their intra-operative care. The relationship between patient gender and comfort level in the neurosurgical operating room (OR) has not been previously studied. Our objective was to gain insight into patients' perspective of the OR environment, including staffing and observers, the role of medical students, catheterization, exposure, and verbiage, using a qualitative needs assessment. METHODS: Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients (14 female, six male) who had a neurosurgical operation under general anesthetic within the previous two years. The majority underwent craniotomy for benign tumours. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to modified thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nine themes emerged: 1) perception of the intra-operative environment varies between men and women; 2) lacking awareness about observers is anxiety-provoking for women; 3) being unaware of the hands-on involvement of students is a concern for all patients; 4) disclosure of implantation of foreign and permanent materials into patients is important; 5) catheterization is anxiety provoking for women; 6) pre-operative menstruation screening may minimize embarrassment for women; 7) patients perceive extraneous conversation as a distraction for surgeons; 8) patients trust their surgeon; 9) a relationship exists between interviewer gender and patient comfort in the interview. CONCLUSION: Although most male and female patients are unaware of OR activities, they are generally not fearful since they trust their surgeon. Women appear to have greater information needs. Patients' information needs must be met without provoking anxiety and yet preserving their personal sense of modesty in the intra-operative environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".