Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10248701

Preparation for elective surgery: does it make a difference.

E Crocker
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study postulated that children prepared for elective surgery would show less stress in physiological terms while in the hospital and fewer postdischarge behavior changes than children in a control group not being systematically prepared for pending surgery. It was also postulated that younger children would be more anxious than older children. Actual findings supported only a few of the original hypotheses, but the study itself raises major questions for those interested in the overall impact of hospitalization and the reduction of psychological trauma for children who may be particularly vulnerable to stress.

Explore related subjects

AnxietyChildChild, HospitalizedChild, PreschoolEvaluation Studies as TopicHospital Bed Capacity, 100 to 299HumansNova ScotiaParentsPlay TherapyPreoperative CareJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Crocker. 1980. Preparation for elective surgery: does it make a difference.. https://doi.org/10.1080/02739617909450672

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment.

BACKGROUND: Placebo treatments have been reported to help patients with many diseases, but the quality of the evidence supporting this finding has not been rigorously evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials in which patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or no treatment. A placebo could be pharmacologic (e.g., a tablet), physical (e.g., a manipulation), or psychological (e.g., a conversation). RESULTS: We identified 130 trials that met our inclusion criteria. After the exclusion of 16 trials without relevant data on outcomes, there were 32 with binary outcomes (involving 3795 patients, with a median of 51 patients per trial) and 82 with continuous outcomes (involving 4730 patients, with a median of 27 patients per trial). As compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes (pooled relative risk of an unwanted outcome with placebo, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.02), regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.38 to -0.19), but the effect decreased with increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of small trials. The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25) but not for those with objective outcomes. In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15). This corresponded to a reduction in the intensity of pain of 6.5 mm on a 100-mm visual-analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.

Anxiety↗