Educating surgical patients about safe use of opioids: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Currently, it is not routine practice in the preoperative clinic to provide standardized patient education for safe postoperative opioid use. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an educational pamphlet for surgical patients on knowledge about safe opioid use. Methods This multi-center randomized controlled study recruited 100 adult patients in the preoperative clinic. All patients completed a baseline knowledge questionnaire consisting of 10 questions. Patients were randomized to intervention: educational pamphlet, or control: no pamphlet. Questionnaires were repeated immediately post-education in the intervention group, and at 15, and 30 days after surgery in both groups. The primary outcome was change in knowledge score post-education in the intervention compared to control group. Results Between groups, the immediate post-education score in the intervention group was significantly higher than control group baseline 34.2 [95% Confidence interval (CI) 33.1-35.3] vs 28.3 [95% CI 26.6-29.9]; P<0.0001). In intervention vs control group, mean scores were significantly higher 31.6 (95% CI 30.5-32.7) vs 29.1 (95% CI 27.9-30.2; P=.002) at 15 days, and 32.4 (95%CI 31.4-33.5) vs 30.5 (95% CI 29.2-31.7; P=.017) at 30 days postoperatively. Conclusions Educating surgical patients with a simple educational pamphlet improved patients’ scores on a standardized test about opioids up to 30 days after surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".