Preoperative Patient Education Programs for Orthopaedic Surgery: What Do the Programs Include? How Are They Delivered? What Are the Knowledge Gaps? A Scoping Review of 46 Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the nature and content of the current literature on preoperative education programs for patients preparing for orthopaedic surgery, (2) assess the completeness of reporting program descriptions, and (3) report gaps within the literature. DESIGN: Scoping review. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for studies that (1) addressed preoperative education in elective orthopaedic surgery or (2) provided descriptions or evaluations of a preoperative program, including the content or outcomes of the program. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were included if they addressed preoperative patient education focused on an elective orthopaedic surgery and any of the (1) descriptions of an education program including any theoretical frameworks, content, or delivery, or (2) evaluations of the process of a preoperative educational program. Studies were excluded if they were treatment programs with the goal of resolving the problem occurring prior to surgery (eg, rehabilitation or pain management prior to surgery). DATA SYNTHESIS: We used the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide to assess the completeness of reporting of the content of educational programs. Content was synthesized descriptively and by intervention mapping. The results informed of a draft operational definition of preoperative education that we refined based on expert consultation. RESULTS: Forty-six articles were included. There was variation in study designs, target populations, and intervention content. Preoperative education was defined in 1 out of 5 studies. Thirteen studies used a platform of video-based modules to deliver their program; 3 studies implemented virtual platforms. Results from the TIDieR checklist indicated that 30% of studies tracked adherence to and fidelity of their programs. A definition and conceptual map indicated that the length of stay, functional abilities, patient knowledge, and satisfaction were expected benefits. CONCLUSION: .
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 | 0.061 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".