Nonpharmacological Interventions to Mitigate Procedural Pain in the NICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small infants experience a myriad of stimuli while in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), with many being painful or stressful experiences, although medically necessary. PURPOSE: To determine what is known about nonpharmacological developmental care interventions used in the NICU to mitigate procedural pain of infants born under 32 weeks gestation. SEARCH/STRATEGY: Five electronic databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were as follows: experimental and nonexperimental studies from all publication years with infants born at less than 32 weeks gestational age; peer-reviewed research articles studying nonpharmacological interventions such as skin-to-skin care, facilitated tucking, nonnutritive sucking, hand hugs, and swaddling; and English language articles. Our search yielded 1435 articles. After the elimination of 736 duplicates, a further 570 were deemed irrelevant based on their abstract/titles. Then, 124 full-text articles were analyzed with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Sucrose, facilitated tucking, pacifier, skin-to-skin care, and human milk appeared to lessen pain experienced during heel sticks, suctioning, nasogastric tube insertions, and echocardiograms. All nonpharmacological interventions failed to prove efficacious to adequately manage pain during retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) examinations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Evidence review demonstrates that healthcare practitioners should use nonpharmacological measures to help prevent pain from day-to-day procedures in the NICU including heel sticks, nasogastric tube insertions, suctioning, echocardiograms, and subcutaneous injections. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future research is necessary to better understand and measure how pain is manifested by very small premature infants. Specific research on mitigating the pain of examinations for retinopathy of prematurity is also needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".