Simple Psychological Interventions for Reducing Pain From Common Needle Procedures in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of simple psychological interventions for managing pain and fear in adults undergoing vaccination or related common needle procedures (ie, venipuncture/venous cannulation). DESIGN/METHODS: Databases were searched to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Self-reported pain and fear were prioritized as critically important outcomes. Data were combined using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: No studies involving vaccination met inclusion criteria; evidence was drawn from 8 studies of other common needle procedures (eg, venous cannulation, venipuncture) in adults. Two trials evaluating the impact of neutral signaling of the impending procedure (eg, "ready?") as compared with signaling of impending pain (eg, "sharp scratch") demonstrated lower pain when signaled about the procedure (n=199): SMD=-0.97 (95% CI, -1.26, -0.68), after removal of 1 trial where self-reported pain was significantly lower than the other 2 included trials. Two trials evaluated music distraction (n=156) and demonstrated no difference in pain: SMD=0.10 (95% CI, -0.48, 0.27), or fear: SMD=-0.25 (95% CI, -0.61, 0.10). Two trials evaluated visual distraction and demonstrated no difference in pain (n=177): SMD=-0.57 (95% CI, -1.82, 0.68), or fear (n=81): SMD=-0.05 (95% CI, -0.50, 0.40). Two trials evaluating breathing interventions found less pain in intervention groups (n=138): SMD=-0.82 (95% CI, -1.21, -0.43). The quality of evidence across all trials was very low. CONCLUSIONS: There are no published studies of simple psychological interventions for vaccination pain in adults. There is some evidence of a benefit from other needle procedures for breathing strategies and neutral signaling of the start of the procedure. There is no evidence for use of music or visual distraction.
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 | 0.035 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".