A multifactorial strategy of pain management is associated with less pain in scheduled vaccination of children. A study realized by family practitioners in 239 children aged 4-12 years old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The multiplicity of vaccine injections during childhood leads to iterative painful and stressful experiences which may lead in turn to anticipated pain and then possibly to a true needle phobia. We aimed at evaluating a multifactorial strategy of pain management combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches during vaccination, as compared to usual care, in 4- to 12-year-old children. METHODS: In all, 239 children were enrolled by 25 family practitioners in an open-label study. After a pseudo-randomization, usual pain management (n = 132) was compared to a multifactorial strategy (n = 107) associating preliminary application of an anesthesic patch, preferential use of specified vaccines, child education by the parents and the doctor, parental accompaniment and child distraction with soap bubbles during the procedure. The primary outcome (i.e. child pain) was assessed with a self-report scale named visual analog scale (VAS) of pain. RESULTS: A significant decrease in pain was obtained using the multifactorial strategy, as assessed by self-reported VAS (P < 0.0001). This was confirmed by another self-report scale (the facial pain scale revised: P = 0.005), as well as with hetero-evaluations by GPs and parents [Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale: P = 0.0007; GPs VAS (P < 0.0001), parents VAS (P < 0.0001)], which were secondary outcome criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This multifactorial method significantly decreases vaccination pain in 4- to 12-year-old children. This strategy could make vaccines more acceptable to children and may improve child-doctor relationships and contribute to a decrease in child fear about health care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".