Preparing Parents to Be Present for Their Child’s Anesthesia Induction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a brief preparation intervention for parental presence during induction of anesthesia (PPIA preparation) with a PPIA with standard preparation (PPIA standard). METHODS: Ninety-three children, aged 2 to 10 years, undergoing elective surgery at a children's hospital participated together with their parents. Parents were randomly assigned to receive either PPIA preparation or PPIA standard before their children's induction of anesthesia. Children of parents assigned to each group were compared on measures of preoperative anxiety, cooperation at induction, emergence delirium, and postoperative pain. Parents were compared on measures of state anxiety and self-efficacy about their role in the operating room (OR). RESULTS: The effectiveness of parental presence in reducing children's preoperative anxiety was not improved by the intervention at the holding stage (P =0.15, Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odds [WMWodds; 95% confidence interval {CI}] = 1.41 [0.75-3.10]), the point at which the family left the holding area (P = 0.39, WMWodds [95% CI] = 1.18 [0.60-2.45]), the point that they entered the OR (P =0.28, WMWodds [95% CI] = 1.23 [0.65-2.67]), or the point at which the anesthesia mask was introduced (P = 1.3, WMWodds [95% CI] = 1.23 [0.64-2.63]). However, parents who received PPIA preparation trended toward greater self-efficacy about their role in the OR than those who received PPIA standard (P = 0.03, WMWodds [95% CI] = 1.69 [1.07-2.87]). CONCLUSIONS: A brief, video-based intervention aimed at preparing parents to be present for their child's anesthesia induction was not successful in reducing the children's preoperative anxiety. However, it is unclear whether parents included in this study actually performed as instructed in the intervention to reduce their children's anxiety. Future research should monitor parent behavior and support parental performance to reduce their children's preoperative anxiety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".