Effectiveness of a rectal cancer education video on patient expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Discrepancy between patient expectations and outcomes can negatively affect patient satisfaction and quality of life. We aimed to assess patient expectations of bowel, urinary, and sexual function after rectal cancer treatments, and whether a preoperative education video changed expectations. METHODS: A total of 45 patients were assessed between January 2018 and January 2021 in a tertiary care hospital in Vancouver, Canada. Patients included were rectal cancer patients who had neoadjuvant chemoradiation and were listed for low anterior resection but had not yet had surgery. Following surgical consultation but before surgery, a questionnaire assessing expectations of lifestyle after treatments was administered. Patients then watched an educational video and repeated the questionnaire to assess for changes in expectations. RESULTS: Patient scores indicated expectation that control of bowel movements, urination, and sexual function would sometimes be problematic, but had a range from occasionally problematic to good function. Significant change after the video was seen in the expectation of needing medications for bowel control, and 44%-69% of individual patient answers changed from prevideo to post-video, depending on the question. The education video was scored as helpful or very helpful by 82% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have varying expectations of problematic control of bowel, urinary, and sexual function following rectal cancer treatments. A pretreatment education video resulted in a trend toward changed expectations for functional outcomes in most patients. Further educational modalities for patients may provide more uniform expectations of function and increase patient satisfaction after rectal cancer treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".