From the Mouth of Babes: Getting Vaccinated Doesn’t Have to Hurt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analgesic interventions are not commonly administered during childhood vaccination, despite the fact that two-thirds of children are afraid of needles and one-tenth are noncompliant with immunization. OBJECTIVE: To explore children's experiences of vaccination and preferences for analgesia. METHODS: A total of 17 children (four to 14 years of age) at an independent school in Toronto (Ontario) participated in three focus-group interviews. The majority had previous experience with pain management interventions during vaccination. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze interview transcripts. RESULTS: THE FINDINGS WERE CATEGORIZED INTO THREE MAIN THEMES: experience of vaccination; roles and responsibilities regarding pain management; and impact of pain management. Children easily recalled previous vaccinations and discussed fear and distress experienced by themselves and others. Children believed that parents and immunizers should prepare them ahead of time and use interventions to manage and monitor pain. They also wanted adults to support their efforts to lead pain management. Children discussed benefits of managing pain, including reduced unnecessary suffering, improved vaccination experience, reduced risk of developing needle fears and reduced noncompliant behaviours. They were knowledgeable about strategies for reducing pain including distraction, topical anesthetics and injection techniques. They contrasted vaccination with and without pain management, and indicated a preference for pain management. CONCLUSION: Children reported that managing vaccination pain is important and that analgesic interventions should routinely be used. Incorporating pain management in the process of vaccination has the potential to improve children's experiences with vaccination and promote more positive attitudes and behaviours.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".