Effects of Distraction on Pain, Fear, and Distress During Venous Port Access and Venipuncture in Children and Adolescents With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the effect of self-selected distracters (ie, bubbles, I Spy: Super Challenger book, music table, virtual reality glasses, or handheld video games) on pain, fear, and distress in 50 children and adolescents with cancer, ages 5 to 18, with port access or venipuncture. Using an intervention-comparison group design, participants were randomized to the comparison group (n = 28) to receive standard care or intervention group (n = 22) to receive distraction plus standard care. All participants rated their pain and fear, parents rated participant fear, and the nurse rated participant fear and distress at 3 points in time: before, during, and after port access or venipuncture. Results show that self-reported pain and fear were significantly correlated (P = .01) within treatment groups but not significantly different between groups. Intervention participants demonstrated significantly less fear (P <.001) and distress (P = .03) as rated by the nurse and approached significantly less fear (P = .07) as rated by the parent. All intervention parents said the needlestick was better because of the distracter. The authors conclude that distraction has the potential to reduce fear and distress during port access and venipuncture.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".