Watch Needle, Watch TV: Audiovisual Distraction in Preschool Immunization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of audiovisual distraction compared with a blank TV screen in the reduction of pain associated with intramuscular immunization. DESIGN: Subjects were randomly assigned to watch television (TV) (N = 29) or a blank TV screen (control) (N = 33) during immunization, and were videotaped. Immediately after the injection, the children rated their pain. Videotapes were coded for pain behaviors and for distraction. t tests determined between-group mean differences and chi-square tests compared proportions for clinically significant self-reported pain. SETTING: Two urban pediatric practices in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. SUBJECTS: Five-year-old children (N = 62), undergoing diphtheria, polio, tetanus, and pertussis immunization, and their parents. INTERVENTIONS: An age-appropriate musical cartoon or a blank TV screen. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain measurements were the children's self-reports on Faces Pain Scale, facial actions on Child Facial Coding System, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale. Distraction was measured by mean time spent watching the TV screen. Parents rated their own and their child's anxiety on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences for any pain or distraction measures. The relative risk estimate for clinically significant pain among the distraction group was 0.64 (range: 0.23-1.80). Higher levels of distraction (i.e., greater time looking at the TV screen) related to lower levels of pain on all three pain measures. Only correlations with objective pain measures were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Watching cartoons did not distract children during needle injection nor reduce their pain. Looking at the TV screen was related to lower behavioral pain scores in the total sample.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".