Does practising hypnosis-derived communication techniques by oncology nurses translate into reduced pain and distress in their patients? An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the effects of a hypnotic communication (HC) training for paediatric nurses in decreasing patients’ pain and distress during venipunctures. Methods: A 4-day theoretical and practical HC training was offered to five paediatric oncology nurses. The effects of HC were tested with 22 young cancer patients (13 girls, 9 boys, 10 ± 4 years) over four time points, with 88 encounters being video-recorded and coded in stable professional-patient dyads. Patients’ pain and distress were rated by patients and parents with visual analogue scales and coded from recordings using the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Results: We observed a significant decrease in pre-post distress reported by parents ( d = 0.45, p = 0.046). Two out of five nurses with higher skills acquisition had larger reduction in patients’ self-reported pain ( d = 1.03, p = 0.028), parents perceived pain ( d = 1.09, p = 0.042), distress ( d = 1.05, p = 0.043) as well as observed pain ( d = 1.22, p = 0.025). Favourable results on pain and distress did not maintain at follow-up. Conclusion and clinical implications: Training nurses in HC may translate into improved pain and distress in patients, both self-rated and observed provided that skills are used in practice. HC training is a promising non-pharmacological intervention to address pain in paediatrics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".