A Brief Mindfulness Intervention for Parents and Children before Pediatric Venipuncture: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine needle procedures can be distressing for parents and children. Mindfulness interventions may be helpful for parents and children but have not been examined for pediatric needle procedures despite showing benefits in the context of pediatric chronic pain and in lab-based pain tasks. METHODS: This preregistered (NCT03941717) two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial examined the effects of a 5 min mindfulness intervention before pediatric venipuncture for parents and children (aged 7-12) compared to a control group on primary outcomes of child pain and fear, secondary outcomes of parent distress, and tertiary outcomes of parent ratings of child pain and fear. Moderators of parent and children's responses to the intervention were examined: state catastrophizing, trait mindfulness, and experiential avoidance. RESULTS: Sixty-one parent-child dyads were randomized (31 mindfulness; 30 control). Parents and children completed measures, listened to a 5 min audio recording (mindfulness or control), and parents accompanied their child during routine venipuncture. The mindfulness intervention involved breathing and encouraging nonjudgmental attention to one's experiences, while the control condition involved an unfocused attention task. Three between-subject MANCOVAs assessed for group differences. Child pain and fear rated by children and their parents did not differ between groups. Parents in the mindfulness group were less distressed during the venipuncture than the controls. Parent state catastrophizing may have moderated the intervention effects, such that parents with moderate and high catastrophizing levels had lower distress following the mindfulness intervention versus control. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not reduce child pain or fear but reduced parent distress. It appeared most helpful for parents catastrophizing about their child's pain, which is noteworthy as these children are prone to worse outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".