Parental Psychological Distress Moderates the Impact of a Video Intervention to Help Parents Manage Young Child Vaccination Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The current study sets out to conduct a post hoc analysis of the moderating effect of parent psychological distress on a pediatric pain management intervention. Methods: Parents of 6-month-old infants (n = 64) and 18-month-old toddlers (n = 64 each) were randomized to a treatment (The ABCDs of Pain Management) or control video and videotaped during the vaccination. Parent psychological distress was also measured at the vaccination. Outcomes were children's pain, parent worry, and parent soothing behavior post-vaccination. Results: Parent psychological distress only moderated video effect on toddler pain during the regulation phase. Parent psychological distress did not moderate the impact of the video on parent worry or parent soothing post-needle at either age. The video did increase parent soothing in parents of both infants and toddlers, and reduced worry in parents of toddlers. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess a moderating factor on a child pain management intervention. The video's efficacy was moderated for toddlers' pain regulation, such that parents with high psychological distress did not show as much benefit from the intervention. No other moderations were found in either age group for any other outcome. Main effects for the video impacting soothing behavior of parents of both infants and toddlers were confirmed, and a new finding of video efficacy was seen through the significantly lower worry of toddlers' parents post-needle. Given the nonclinical sample, low levels of psychological distress were found. Efforts to replicate this study in a higher risk sample are necessary.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".