Swedish Web Version of the Quality of Recovery Scale Adapted for Patients Undergoing Local Anesthesia and Peripheral Nerve Blockade (SwQoR-LA): Prospective Psychometric Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The frequency and timing of assessing patient symptoms and discomfort during postoperative recovery are goals. Therefore, real-time recovery evaluation has been suggested to identify specific deficits in patient recovery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to psychometrically evaluate the Swedish Web Version of the Quality of Recovery (SwQoR) Scale adapted for patients undergoing local and peripheral nerve block (SwQoR-LA). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a psychometric evaluation of 107 patients aged ≥18 years undergoing day surgery under local or peripheral nerve block anesthesia at 4 different day surgery departments in Sweden. The SwQoR-LA, available through a mobile app called Recovery Assessment by Phone Points (RAPP), was completed daily on postoperative days 1-7. RESULTS: Some evidence of construct validity was supported, and discriminant validity was found in 7 of 8 items related to general anesthesia. The internal consistency was acceptable (.87-.89), and the split-half reliability was 0.80-0.86. Cohen d effect size was 0.98, and the percentage of change from baseline was 43.4%. No floor nor ceiling effects were found. CONCLUSIONS: The SwQoR-LA is valid, reliable, responsive, and clinically feasible for digital real-time recovery assessment of patient recovery to identify specific deficits in patient recovery and detect those patients who might benefit from a timely intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02492191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02492191. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009901.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".