Changes in satisfaction and anxiety about radiotherapy for pediatric cancer by two-step audio-visual instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Although radiotherapy is an essential component of pediatric cancer treatment, inadequate radiotherapy information for childhood cancer and unusual treatment situations can negatively affect parental perceptions and emotions. This study aims to investigate the effect of two-step audio-visual instruction system effects introduced by our institution on parent satisfaction and anxiety when initiating radiotherapy. Methods: The two-step audio-visual instruction system comprised instructive animation using patient avatars and a live video system. The live video system has a 55-inch-wide monitor, and a no-latency sound module. Parents in the radiotherapy division can view the patient in the treatment room through the live video system. This prospective study compared satisfaction and anxiety about radiotherapy introduction before and after two-step audio-visual instruction. We enrolled 20 parents whose child underwent radiotherapy, and they completed a set of questionnaires-Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and original questionnaires about radiotherapy. Results: Satisfaction scores improved significantly after two-step audio visual instruction (25.5 ± 3.4) compared with those before the instruction (27.7 ± 3.1) (p = <0.01). Anxiety scores also decreased significantly after the instruction (50 ± 9) compared with those before the instruction (54 ± 11) (p = 0.004). However, anxiety-related personality trait scores did not change drastically before and after viewing (48 ± 8.5 vs. 49 ± 7.5) (p = 0.419). Conclusion: This single-arm prospective study indicates that two-step audio-visual instruction for radiotherapy is effective in improving parents' anxiety about radiotherapy introductions. However, large-scale and comparative studies are warranted to generalize the benefit of two-step audio visual instruction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".