Psychological Interventions for Vaccine Injections in Young Children 0 to 3 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of distraction for reducing infant distress during vaccinations in young children aged 0 to 3 years. DESIGN/METHODS: Database searches identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Three separate clinical questions related to variants of the psychological strategy of distraction (directed video; directed toy; nondirected toy) were pursued. Distress was identified as the critical outcome to assess the benefits of distraction and extracted from relevant trials. Distress was analyzed by phase of procedure (distress preprocedure; distress acute; distress recovery; idiosyncratic phases based on some or all of the 3 aforementioned phases). RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the review. Significant results are presented herein. For directed video distraction, moderate quality evidence suggested that distress was lowered in the treatment group standardized mean difference (SMD -0.68 lower [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.04 to -0.32]) for the acute+recovery phase as well as the preprocedure phase (SMD -0.49 lower [95% CI, -7.6 to -0.22]). For directed toy distraction, the analysis of low-quality evidence for a combined preprocedure+acute+recovery phase of distress (analysis n=81), suggested that distress was lowered in the treatment group (SMD -0.47 lower [95% CI, -0.91 to -0.02]). An effect for nondirected toy distraction was also seen, analyzing very-low-quality evidence, for the acute distress phase (n=290; SMD -0.93 lower [95% CI, -1.86 to 0.00]). CONCLUSION: Generally low-quality to very-low-quality evidence suggests that there may be an effect of directed (toy and video) and nondirected toy distraction for children aged 0 to 3 years, for certain phases of the vaccination.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".