When are parents helpful? A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy of parental presence for pediatric anesthesia Quand les parents sont-ils utiles? une etude clinique randomisee sur l'efficacitede la presence parentale lors d'une anesthesie pediatrique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To examine the utility of parental presence to alleviate anxiety in a narrow age range of children undergoing outpatient surgery. We hypothesized that parental presence would lower anxiety scores as measured by the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) at two time-points during pediatric outpatient surgery, i.e., separation from parents and placement of the face mask for anesthetic induction. Method Sixty-one children ages three to six years scheduled for various day surgery procedures participated in this study. The children were assigned randomly to either parental presence (n = 30) or parental absence (n = 31) groups. Observer-rated anxiety was measured by the mYPAS at five time-points during the surgery experience. Results Child anxiety was significantly lower in the parental presence group than in the parental absence group at the time-point when the children in the parental absence group were separated from their parents, t[59] = 2.15 (P = 0.001). However, no significant group differences in anxiety scores were noted at other timepoints. Conclusions Our results suggest that anxiety levels in children undergoing day surgical procedures differ as a function of parental presence at the point when children are separated from parents. Future research should examine the types of interactions that occur during this time-point that may explain this finding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".