Audiovisual interventions for parental preoperative anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyze studies assessing the effectiveness of audiovisual (AV) interventions aimed at reducing anxiety in parents whose children are undergoing elective surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. A narrative synthesis of findings and random-effects meta-analyses were used to summarize the results. Our primary outcome was parental anxiety. Secondary outcomes included children's preoperative anxiety and postoperative outcomes; parental satisfaction, knowledge, and need for anesthesia information. Risk of bias was appraised within and across studies. RESULTS: Our search yielded 723 studies and 11 were included. A Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of -0.53 (95% CI [-0.91, -0.15], p < .01) was found between parental anxiety scores in AV interventions and control groups. In terms of children's preoperative anxiety, there was a SMD of -0.59 (95% CI [-1.11, -0.07], p < .05) between children's anxiety scores in AV intervention and nonintervention participants. Furthermore, AV interventions were shown to shorten the recovery time for children undergoing surgery (SMD = -0.21; 95% CI [-0.39, -0.02], p = .03) but did not lead to improvements on other postoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that AV interventions have modest, positive effects on both parental and children's preoperative anxiety. Although a statistically significant medium size effect was detected, the clinical significance of this finding requires further exploration. Further research aimed at developing better AV interventions to help guide future practice is warranted. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".