A Pain Education Intervention for Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Inguinal Hernia Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Inguinal hernia repair is a common ambulatory surgery after which many patients experience moderate to severe post-operative pain. Limited research has examined the effect of education interventions to reduce pain after ambulatory surgery. Purpose This trial evaluated the effectiveness of an individualized Hernia Repair Education Intervention (HREI) for patients following inguinal hernia repair. Method Pre-operatively, participants (N = 82) were randomized to either the intervention (HREI) or the usual care group. The HREI included written and verbal information regarding managing pain and two telephone support calls (before and after surgery). The primary outcome was WORST 24-h pain intensity on movement on post-operative day 2. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity at rest and movement, pain-related interference with activities, pain quality, analgesics consumed, and adverse effects at post-operative days 2 and 7. Results At day 2, the intervention group reported significantly lower scores across pain intensity outcomes, including WORST 24-h pain on movement and at rest (p < 0.001), and pain NOW on movement and at rest (p = 0.001). Conclusion These findings suggest that the HREI may improve patients' pain and function following ambulatory inguinal hernia repair. Further research should examine the effectiveness of an education intervention over a longer period of time.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".