Randomized clinical trial of musical distraction with and without headphones for adolescents’ immunization pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distraction has shown to be a helpful pain intervention for children; however, few investigations have studied the effectiveness of this method with adolescents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of an easy and practical musical distraction in reducing adolescents' immunization pain. Furthermore, to examine whether musical distraction techniques (with or without headphones) used influenced the pain outcome. Hundred and eighteen 14-year-old adolescents, scheduled for polio immunization, participated. Adolescents were randomly assigned to one of three research groups; musical distraction with headphones (n=38), musical distraction without headphones (n=41) and standard care control (n=39). Results showed adolescents receiving musical distraction were less likely to report pain compared to the control group, controlling for covariates. Comparing musical distraction techniques, eliminating headphone emerged as a significant predictor of no pain. Results suggest that an easy and practical musical distraction intervention, implemented without headphones, can give some pain relief to adolescents during routine vaccination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".