Children’s Pain During IV Induction: A Randomized-Controlled Trial With the MEDi® Robot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of a humanoid robot (MEDi®) programmed to teach deep breathing as a coping strategy, on children's pain and fear as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively, during intravenous (IV) line placement. The completion of IV induction was also examined as an exploratory outcome. METHODS: In this randomized controlled, two-armed trial, 137 children (4-12 years) were recruited in Short Stay Surgery at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to standard care (SC) with Ametop© only (N = 60) or SC and robot-facilitated intervention (N = 59) before induction. Pain and fear before, during, and after IV insertion were rated by patients and observers. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between groups and there were no changes over time for pain or fear (ps > .05). Exploratory analyses show that patients in the MEDi® group were 5.04 times more likely to complete IV induction, compared to SC, Fisher's exact test: X2 (1) = 4.85, p = .04, φc = 0.22, odds ratio = 5.04, 95% CI [1.06, 24.00]. CONCLUSION: This study was the first to examine children's IV induction experience when provided MEDi® support. Reasons for nonsignificance, limitations, and research suggestions were made.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".