B.07 An educational video improves consent in pediatric lumbar puncture: a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a low-risk procedure performed on pediatric patients for a variety of indications. There are no published studies of the nature of the concerns of parents in North America, and no studies examining a process to improve pediatric lumbar puncture consent. Methods: 72 patient-parent dyads were enrolled in a randomized control trial to receive standard consent with or without an educational video. A survey was provided to determine parent self-rated understanding of the procedure, their perception of its safety, their perception of the painfulness and their overall comfort with their child undergoing LP. In addition, demographic characteristics and qualitative information about parent concerns were collected. Results: Viewing the video significantly increased parent understanding of the procedure (p=0.015) and their perception of its safety (p=0.021) compared to controls. Parent comfort with the procedure increased after viewing the video (p = 0.002). Variability of answers was reduced in the video group (p = 0.03). Parents’ top three concerns were pain, infection, and neurologic injury. Conclusions: Pediatric lumbar puncture consent can be significantly improved with a short educational video to address the parental concerns and standardize consent.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".