Interactive media as a tool for reducing waiting anxiety at paediatric rehabilitation hospitals: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the efficacy of waiting room media for reducing anxiety and increasing satisfaction at a paediatric rehabilitation hospital. METHOD: In this clustered, parallel, randomized controlled trial, 310 young people with disabilities (age range 5-19y) and their parents attending outpatient clinics were assigned to interactive media (n=113), a silent nature video (n=97), or media-free comparison (n=100) groups. Young person and parent anxiety was reported using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) on arrival and after 10 minutes in the waiting space. Questionnaires measured young person, parent, and staff satisfaction. RESULTS: Young people exposed to interactive media reported a postexposure state anxiety that was 1.1 raw points (2.7 standardized points) lower on the STAI than the comparison group (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9 to -0.22). There was no difference in postexposure state anxiety between the passive media and comparison groups (95% CI -0.64 to 1.1). Parents' state anxiety did not differ between conditions, but interactive media were associated with greater satisfaction (p=0.009). Of 120 staff, 119 reported that interactive media improved the clinic experience for families. INTERPRETATION: Interactive media designed for accessible, hands-free play mitigate waiting anxiety and increases satisfaction. This paper provides evidence to guide design and decision-making around the use of interactive media in health care spaces. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Interactive media reduced preclinic waiting anxiety for young people with disabilities. Interactive media were accessible to young people with a range of mobility. Interactive media increased parental and staff satisfaction in the clinic. Guidelines for the design of hands-free, inclusive interactive media for health care facilities are presented.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".