Psychological interventions for vaccine injections in children and adolescents: Systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of psychological interventions for reducing vaccination pain and related outcomes in children and adolescents. Design/Methods: Database searches identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted and pooled using established methods. Pain, fear, and distress were considered critically important outcomes. Results: Twenty-two studies were included; 2 included adolescents. Findings showed no benefit of false suggestion (n=240) for pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.21 [-0.47, 0.05]) or distress (SMD -0.28 [-0.59, 0.11]), or for use of repeated reassurance (n=82) for pain (SMD -0.18 [-0.92, 0.56]), fear (SMD -0.18 [-0.71, 0.36]), or distress (SMD 0.10 [-0.33, 0.54]). Verbal distraction (n=46) showed reduced distress (SMD -1.22 [-1.87, -0.58]), but not reduced pain (SMD -0.27 [-1.02, 0.47]). Similarly, video distraction (n=328) showed reduced distress (SMD -0.58 [-0.82, -0.34]), but not reduced pain (SMD -0.88 [-1.78, 0.02]) or fear (SMD 0.08 [-0.25, 0.41]). Music distraction demonstrated reduced pain when used with children (n=417) (SMD -0.45 [-0.71, -0.18]), but not with adolescents (n=118) (SMD -0.04 [-0.42, 0.34]). Breathing with a toy (n=368) showed benefit for pain (SMD -0.49 [-0.85, -0.13]), but not fear (SMD -0.60 [-1.22, 0.02]); whereas breathing without a toy (n=136) showed no benefit for pain (SMD -0.27 [-0.61, 0.07]) or fear (SMD -0.36 [-0.86, 0.15]). There was no benefit for a breathing intervention (cough) in children and adolescents (n=136) for pain (SMD -0.17 [-0.41, 0.07]). Conclusions: Psychological interventions with some evidence of benefit in children include: verbal distraction, video distraction, music distraction, and breathing with a toy.
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 | 0.024 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".