Trained and dedicated staff appears to be the main factor in decreasing anxiety and improving overall satisfaction during urodynamic testing: A prospective, randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine whether listening to patient-selected music during urodynamic study (UDS) reduced pain and anxiety while increasing overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure. METHODS: Fifty-one (51) patients who underwent UDS from March to July 2014 were randomized into two groups: Group 1 with patient-selected music during the procedure (n=27) and Group 2 without music (n=24). Standard multichannel filling cystometry was performed. Anxiety was self-assessed using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, while overall pain, satisfaction, and willingness to undergo the procedure again were self-measured using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and reasons for testing were similar between the two groups. The state score for Groups 1 and 2 were 27.04 and 29.5, respectively (p=0.3225) and 31.78 and 33.86, respectively (p=0.4970) for the trait score. The mean pain scores were 1.04 and 1.57, respectively (p=0.2047); the mean satisfaction scores were 0.65 and 0.52, respectively (p=0.8169); and the scores for willingness to undergo the procedure again were 0.77 and 0.74, respectively (p=0.9442). While there were no significant differences between the two groups in anxiety and satisfaction scores, pain, and willingness to undergo the procedure again, both groups commented on the nurse as the most important factor in their overall comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Music during UDS did not appear to lower pain and anxiety, nor increase overall satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure. The most important aspect in alleviating patients' pain and anxiety was the person actually performing the testing, highlighting the importance of having trained and dedicated staff.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".