Cognitive-behavioral interventions for IV insertion pain

Effects of a Thermoelectric Element Band on Venipuncture-associated Pain and Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Venipuncture is an invasive procedure for diagnosis and treatment, which is often attributed to pain and anxiety. In this study, a thermoelectric element (TEE) band was developed to apply heat therapy (40∼45°C), cold therapy (0∼10°C), or thermal grill illusion (TGI) therapy (40∼45°C, 0∼10°C) to cause an illusion of pain by simultaneously applying heat and cold. This band was subsequently used to investigate its effect on patient pain, anxiety, and satisfaction.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled study. Participants, who were to undergo venipuncture, were randomly assigned to the heat therapy, cold therapy, TGI therapy, or control groups. Each group had 30 participants. The interventions were employed for 10 seconds during venipuncture, and the pain, anxiety, and satisfaction were measured before and after the procedure.

RESULTS

Subjective pain, anxiety, and physiological responses after TEE band intervention were not significantly different between the four groups. However, there was a significant difference in satisfaction (F = 4.21, p = .007) between the four groups, and the cold therapy group showed the highest satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

In this study, when heat, cold, and TGI therapy were applied with a TEE band, pain and anxiety relief effects were not confirmed, but satisfaction was high. TEE band is a newly developed product that can easily apply hot and cold treatments without using ice packs or hot water packs. Further studies with various individual characteristics of chronic pain or repeated venipuncture are warranted to evaluate the effect of TEE.

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review (Issue 4, 2006). Pain and distress from needle-related procedures are common during childhood and can be reduced through use of psychological interventions (cognitive or behavioral strategies, or both). Our first review update (Issue 10, 2013) showed efficacy of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched six electronic databases for relevant trials: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; PsycINFO; Embase; Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge); and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We sent requests for additional studies to pediatric pain and child health electronic listservs. We also searched registries for relevant completed trials: clinicaltrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int.trialsearch). We conducted searches up to September 2017 to identify records published since the last review update in 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included peer-reviewed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least five participants per study arm, comparing a psychological intervention with a control or comparison group. Trials involved children aged two to 19 years undergoing any needle-related medical procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risks of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We examined pain and distress assessed by child self-report, observer global report, and behavioral measurement (primary outcomes). We also examined any reported physiological outcomes and adverse events (secondary outcomes). We used meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of identified psychological interventions relative to a comparator (i.e. no treatment, other active treatment, treatment as usual, or waitlist) for each outcome separately. We used Review Manager 5 software to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 trials (20 new for this update) with 5550 participants. Needle procedures primarily included venipuncture, intravenous insertion, and vaccine injections. Studies included children aged two to 19 years, with few trials focused on adolescents. The most common psychological interventions were distraction (n = 32), combined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; n = 18), and hypnosis (n = 8). Preparation/information (n = 4), breathing (n = 4), suggestion (n = 3), and memory alteration (n = 1) were also included. Control groups were often 'standard care', which varied across studies. Across all studies, 'Risk of bias' scores indicated several domains at high or unclear risk, most notably allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessment, and selective reporting. We downgraded the quality of evidence largely due to serious study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision.Very low- to low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of distraction for self-reported pain (n = 30, 2802 participants; SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.33) and distress (n = 4, 426 participants; SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.18), observer-reported pain (n = 11, 1512 participants; SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.23) and distress (n = 5, 1067 participants; SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.03), and behavioral distress (n = 7, 500 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.04). Distraction was not efficacious for behavioral pain (n = 4, 309 participants; SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.03). Very low-quality evidence indicated hypnosis was efficacious for reducing self-reported pain (n = 5, 176 participants; SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.48) and distress (n = 5, 176 participants; SMD -2.53, 95% CI -3.93 to -1.12), and behavioral distress (n = 6, 193 participants; SMD -1.15, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.53), but not behavioral pain (n = 2, 69 participants; SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.81). No studies assessed hypnosis for observer-reported pain and only one study assessed observer-reported distress. Very low- to low-quality evidence supported the efficacy of combined CBT for observer-reported pain (n = 4, 385 participants; SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.30) and behavioral distress (n = 11, 1105 participants; SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.14), but not self-reported pain (n = 14, 1359 participants; SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.03), self-reported distress (n = 6, 234 participants; SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.04), observer-reported distress (n = 6, 765 participants; SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.50), or behavioral pain (n = 2, 95 participants; SMD -0.65, 95% CI -2.36 to 1.06). Very low-quality evidence showed efficacy of breathing interventions for self-reported pain (n = 4, 298 participants; SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.22), but there were too few studies for meta-analysis of other outcomes. Very low-quality evidence revealed no effect for preparation/information (n = 4, 313 participants) or suggestion (n = 3, 218 participants) for any pain or distress outcome. Given only a single trial, we could draw no conclusions about memory alteration. Adverse events of respiratory difficulties were only reported in one breathing intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified evidence supporting the efficacy of distraction, hypnosis, combined CBT, and breathing interventions for reducing children's needle-related pain or distress, or both. Support for the efficacy of combined CBT and breathing interventions is new from our last review update due to the availability of new evidence. The quality of trials and overall evidence remains low to very low, underscoring the need for improved methodological rigor and trial reporting. Despite low-quality evidence, the potential benefits of reduced pain or distress or both support the evidence in favor of using these interventions in clinical practice.

Placebo-like analgesia via response imagery

BACKGROUND

Placebo effects on pain are reliably observed in the literature. A core mechanism of these effects is response expectancies. Response expectancies can be formed by instructions, prior experiences and observation of others. Whether mental imagery of a response can also induce placebo-like expectancy effects on pain has not yet been studied systematically.

METHODS

In Study 1, 80 healthy participants were randomly allocated to (i) response imagery or (ii) control imagery. In Study 2, 135 healthy participants were randomly allocated to (i) response imagery with a verbal suggestion regarding its effectiveness, (ii) response imagery only, or (iii) no intervention. In both studies, expected and experienced pain during cold pressor tests were measured pre- and post-intervention, along with psychological and physiological measures.

RESULTS

Participants rated pain as less intense after response imagery than after control imagery in Study 1 (p = 0.044, ηp2 = 0.054) and as less intense after response imagery (with or without verbal suggestion) than after no imagery in Study 2 (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.154). Adding a verbal suggestion did not affect pain (p = 0.068, ηp2 = 0.038). The effects of response imagery on experienced pain were mediated by expected pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, in line with research on placebo effects, the current findings indicate that response imagery can induce analgesia, via its effects on response expectancies.

SIGNIFICANCE

The reported studies extend research on placebo effects by demonstrating that mental imagery of reduced pain can induce placebo-like expectancy effects on pain.

Simple Psychological Interventions for Reducing Pain From Common Needle Procedures in Adults: Systematic Review of Randomized and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of simple psychological interventions for managing pain and fear in adults undergoing vaccination or related common needle procedures (ie, venipuncture/venous cannulation).

DESIGN/METHODS

Databases were searched to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Self-reported pain and fear were prioritized as critically important outcomes. Data were combined using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

No studies involving vaccination met inclusion criteria; evidence was drawn from 8 studies of other common needle procedures (eg, venous cannulation, venipuncture) in adults. Two trials evaluating the impact of neutral signaling of the impending procedure (eg, "ready?") as compared with signaling of impending pain (eg, "sharp scratch") demonstrated lower pain when signaled about the procedure (n=199): SMD=-0.97 (95% CI, -1.26, -0.68), after removal of 1 trial where self-reported pain was significantly lower than the other 2 included trials. Two trials evaluated music distraction (n=156) and demonstrated no difference in pain: SMD=0.10 (95% CI, -0.48, 0.27), or fear: SMD=-0.25 (95% CI, -0.61, 0.10). Two trials evaluated visual distraction and demonstrated no difference in pain (n=177): SMD=-0.57 (95% CI, -1.82, 0.68), or fear (n=81): SMD=-0.05 (95% CI, -0.50, 0.40). Two trials evaluating breathing interventions found less pain in intervention groups (n=138): SMD=-0.82 (95% CI, -1.21, -0.43). The quality of evidence across all trials was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no published studies of simple psychological interventions for vaccination pain in adults. There is some evidence of a benefit from other needle procedures for breathing strategies and neutral signaling of the start of the procedure. There is no evidence for use of music or visual distraction.

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

This review is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Needle-related procedures are a common source of pain and distress for children. Our previous review on this topic indicated that a number of psychological interventions were efficacious in managing pediatric needle pain, including distraction, hypnosis, and combined cognitive behavioural interventions. Considerable additional research in the area has been published since that time.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an update to our 2006 review assessing the efficacy of psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches of the following databases were conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Web of Science. Requests for relevant studies were also posted on various electronic list servers. We ran an updated search in March 2012, and again in March 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants included children and adolescents aged two to 19 years undergoing needle-related procedures. Only RCTs with at least five participants in each study arm comparing a psychological intervention group with a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and a third author helped with data extraction and coding for one non-English study. Included studies were coded for quality using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were computed for all analyses using Review Manager 5.2 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine trials with 3394 participants were included. The most commonly studied needle procedures were venipuncture, intravenous (IV) line insertion, and immunization. Studies included children aged two to 19 years, with the most evidence available for children under 12 years of age. Consistent with the original review, the most commonly studied psychological interventions for needle procedures were distraction, hypnosis, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The majority of included studies (19 of 39) examined distraction only. The additional studies from this review update continued to provide strong evidence for the efficacy of distraction and hypnosis. No evidence was available to support the efficacy of preparation and information, combined CBT (at least two or more cognitive or behavioural strategies combined), parent coaching plus distraction, suggestion, or virtual reality for reducing children's pain and distress. No conclusions could be drawn about interventions of memory alteration, parent positioning plus distraction, blowing out air, or distraction plus suggestion, as evidence was available from single studies only. In addition, the Risk of bias scores indicated several domains with high or unclear bias scores (for example, selection, detection, and performance bias) suggesting that the methodological rigour and reporting of RCTs of psychological interventions continue to have considerable room for improvement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is strong evidence supporting the efficacy of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents, with no evidence currently available for preparation and information or both, combined CBT, parent coaching plus distraction, suggestion, or virtual reality. Additional research is needed to further assess interventions that have only been investigated in one RCT to date (that is, memory alteration, parent positioning plus distraction, blowing out air, and distraction plus suggestion). There are continuing issues with the quality of trials examining psychological interventions for needle-related pain and distress.

Randomized controlled trial to compare effects of pain relief during IV insertion using bacteriostatic normal saline and 1% buffered lidocaine

A major nursing responsibility is to provide patient care and comfort. Pain reduction is a component of this responsibility to include preanalgesia for peripheral intravenous (IV) insertion. This double-blind randomized controlled trial compared differences in the pain level experienced by 56 nurses during IV cannulation in each arm; one premedicated with bacteriostatic normal saline (BNS) and another with 1% buffered lidocaine (Lido). Subjects and IV inserters were blinded to the type of preanalgesia administered during each cannulation. Subjects rated pain after each cannulation using a 0 to 10 verbal descriptor scale. After IV cannulation was completed in both arms, subjects were asked to reflect on which arm, and thus which type of preanalgesia, would be preferred if an IV is needed in the future. Sample demographics reflected mean years as registered nurse: 18.6±10.6 years; mean years in direct care: 7.5±4.7 years; and mean years experience in inserting IVs: 5.2±4.4 years. Significant differences were detected between overall BNS and Lido pain scores (2.36±1.45 vs 0.93±1.3; P<0.05). Although blinded to the type of preanalgesia used, 89% of subjects chose the arm premedicated with Lido. Although statistical differences in perceived pain were detected, the pain scores were low and may not be clinically significant.

A practical approach to labor support

In the United States, intrapartum nurses are present at 99% of births. These nurses have a unique opportunity to positively affect a laboring woman's comfort and labor progress through the use of labor support behaviors. These nonpharmacologic nursing strategies fall into four categories: physical, emotional, instructional/informational, and advocacy. Implementation of these strategies requires special knowledge and a commitment to the enhanced physical and emotional comfort of laboring women.