A Randomized-controlled Trial of Parent-led Tactile Stimulation to Reduce Pain During Infant Immunization Injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of parent-led tactile stimulation for pain reduction when added to a combination of evidence-based pain-reducing interventions in infants undergoing immunization injections. METHODS: Healthy infants aged 4 to 6 months undergoing routine immunization at a primary care practice were eligible. Infants were randomized to tactile stimulation by a parent or usual care. Parents in the tactile stimulation group rubbed the ipsilateral thigh distal to the site for 15 seconds before, during, and after injections. In addition, all infants received evidence-based pain-relieving interventions including: sucrose solution, holding by a parent, and intramuscular injection without aspiration. The primary outcome was pain, measured by a validated tool, the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), by an observer unaware of treatment allocation using videotapes of the procedure. MBPS scores could range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). Parents, unaware of the study hypothesis, also rated infant pain in real time using a 100 mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: One hundred twenty infants participated. Infant characteristics did not differ (P>0.05) between the tactile stimulation and control groups. Mean MBPS scores and parent visual analogue scale scores did not differ between groups (8.2 [1.1] vs. 8.0 [1.3]; P=0.57) and (60 [20] vs. 53 [22] mm; P=0.10), respectively. DISCUSSION: Parent-led tactile stimulation did not reduce pain in infants undergoing immunization injections when combined with other pain-relieving interventions. Potential reasons for the lack of effectiveness are discussed. Investigation of the effectiveness of clinician-led tactile stimulation in this population is recommended.
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 | 0.025 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".