MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922378501 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.225

A226 IMPACT OF A VIRTUAL REALITY INTERVENTION ON ERGONOMICS IN COLONOSCOPY

2019· article· en· W2922378501 on OpenAlexaff
James Saperia, Shai Genis, Michael A. Scaffidi, Joshua B. Satchwell, Nikko Gimpaya, Daniel Tham, Samir C. Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational health in dentistry
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyTest (biology)Physical therapyHuman factors and ergonomicsIntervention (counseling)ChecklistMedicineMann–Whitney U testPsychologyPoison controlNursingColorectal cancerMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoscopists are at risk of work-related repetitive stress injuries. Endoscopic training often neglects ergonomic teaching, despite the resultant performance benefits from practicing ergonomic techniques in other procedural disciplines. There is a dearth of literature on ergonomic education in endoscopy. To determine the effectiveness of an educational intervention for novice endoscopists designed to teach appropriate ergonomic techniques in colonoscopy. Thirty novice endoscopists (completed <50 colonoscopies) were recruited from a colonoscopy simulation course and randomized to intervention (n=15) and control (n=15) groups. The intervention consisted of teaching and a detailed checklist on whole-body ergonomics reviewed after each of six hours of virtual reality intervention; a one hour didactic lecture; and an instructional video demonstrating ideal ergonomics during colonoscopy that could be accessed at any time. Participants were assessed using the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA), a postural analysis tool, at multiple time points, including at baseline (pre-test), following the intervention (post-test), and at 4–6 weeks post intervention with a simulated test and two clinical colonoscopies. Higher REBA scores correspond to unfavourable ergonomic technique. Differences between the two groups at each timepoint were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Both groups had comparable median REBA scores at baseline. The intervention group outperformed the control group on ergonomic assessment in the simulated post-test (p<0.001) and delayed simulation test (p<0.001), and at first two clinical colonoscopies (both p<0.001). The control group demonstrated a negative effect of time with poorer ergonomics at each of the post- and delayed tests. A multi-modal intervention to teach ergonomic principles in colonoscopy was associated with improved ergonomic techniques among novice endoscopists. This finding was observed across timepoints and settings, including simulated and clinical colonoscopies. Further work is necessary to develop an optimal curriculum for ergonomics and to determine if improved ergonomics corresponds to clinical performance. None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicOccupational health in dentistryFrench-language works237,207