The impact of viewing a hysteroscopy on a screen on the patient’s experience: a randomised trial
article
OA: bronze
CC0
AI-generated summary
Viewing a hysteroscopy on a screen did not improve pain, mood, or communication, but women who did not see the screen felt more optimistic and experienced greater anxiety reduction.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of patient screens for outpatient procedures is becoming increasingly common. To date, the impact on the patient of viewing the screen remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To explore how viewing the screen during a hysteroscopy procedure affects the patient's experience. SETTING: The outpatient clinics at the Royal Surrey Hospital in Guildford and the Royal Infirmary in Bradford. DESIGN: A randomised control trial. SAMPLE: Women undergoing a hysteroscopy procedure were randomly allocated to see the screen (n=81) or not to see the screen (n=76). METHODS: A quantitative study with measures taken before and after the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain perception, mood, illness cognitions, communication. RESULTS: Seeing the screen or not had no impact on several measures of pain perception, mood, illness cognitions or communication. However, women who did not see the screen were more optimistic about the effectiveness of their treatment and felt that the health professional was more receptive to them during the consultation compared with those who saw the screen. After controlling for the use of a local anaesthetic, those who did not see the screen also reported a greater decrease in anxiety after the procedure. However, those who saw the screen described pain more positively (i.e. in terms of comfort, reassurance or encouragement) compared with those who did not see the screen. CONCLUSION: Viewing the screen does not benefit the patient and may interfere with the patient-physician interaction.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
References (27)
- doi:10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/08870440290001494 via openalex
- doi:10.4324/9781315078908-7 via openalex
- doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.356 via openalex
- doi:10.1097/00006250-200011000-00004 via openalex
- doi:10.1159/000010092 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/0028-2243(93)90051-d via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.10.002 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s00464-003-9144-3 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(00)80012-2 via openalex
- W48271714 via openalex
- W131340658 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/08870449608400270 via openalex
- doi:10.1089/gyn.1992.8.225 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1442-2018.2004.00202.x via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.04.017 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(01)00200-2 via openalex
- W2623801564 via openalex
- W2998370832 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01150.x via openalex
- W4285719527 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/08870440108405491 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/088704403100081321 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00984-4 via openalex
- doi:10.1348/135910702169411 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/0005-7916(80)90016-6 via openalex
- doi:10.1097/00006842-200207000-00007 via openalex
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-14T06:27:26.827241+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK