162 Chapter 2 Figure A.11 Forest plot of standardised effect sizes of studies examining anxiety in medical settings Burns-Nader et al. 2017 Chan et al. 2019 – trial 1 Chan et al. 2019 – trial 2 Dwairej et al. 2020 Inan & Inal, 2019 Jung et al. 2021 Ko et al. 2016 Marechal et al. 2017 Nilsson et al. 2013 Osmanlliu et al. 2021 Pande et al. 2020 Patel et al. 2006 Sahin & Karkiner, 2022 Sakizci Uyar et al. 2021 Stewart et al. 2019 Standard care vs. Game distraction Cohen's d [95% CI] -1.43 [-2.23, -0.63] -0.31 [-0.67, 0.04] -0.47 [-0.81, -0.12] -1.37 [-1.76, -0.99] -1.48 [-1.94, -1.01] -1.18 [-1.69, -0.67] 0.19 [-0.22, 0.59] 0.07 [-0.30, 0.43] -0.29 [-0.91, 0.34] -0.32 [-0.83, 0.18] -0.49 [-1.22, 0.24] -0.57 [-1.03, -0.11] 0.32 [0.03, 0.60] 0.07 [-0.35, 0.48] -0.50 [-0.89, -0.11] -2.25 -2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 Favours game distraction Favours standard care Anxiety in medical settings Notes. For the study of Nilsson et al. (2013) Cohen’s d as reported by the authors was inserted in the forest plot, because the data were significantly skewed away from normality and the normal-based methods for data transformation could not be applied. Dwairej et al. (2020) report a Cohen’s d of 1.37 and Stewart et al. (2019) report a Cohen’s d of 0.50. CI = confidence interval.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw