'Needle with ease': rapid stress management techniques

Modifiable risk factors of vaccine hesitancy: insights from a mixed methods multiple population study combining machine learning and thematic analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy, the delay in acceptance or reluctance to vaccinate, ranks among the top threats to global health. Identifying modifiable factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy is crucial for developing targeted interventions to increase vaccination uptake.

METHODS

This mixed-methods multiple population study utilized gradient boosting machines and thematic analysis to identify modifiable predictors of vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy were investigated in 2926 Norwegian adults (Mage = 37.91, 79.69% female), before the predictive utility of these variables was investigated in an independent sample of 734 adults in the UK (Mage = 40.34, 57.08% female). Two independent teams of authors conducted the machine learning and thematic analyses, blind to each other's analytic procedures and results.

RESULTS

The machine learning model performed well in discerning vaccine hesitant (n = 248, 8.48% and n = 109, 14.85%, Norway and UK, respectively) from vaccine uptaking individuals (n = 2678, 91.52% and n = 625, 85.15%), achieving an AUC of 0.94 (AUPRC: 0.72; balanced accuracy: 86%; sensitivity = 0.81; specificity = 0.98) in the Norwegian sample, and an AUC of 0.98 (AUPRC: 0.89; balanced accuracy: 89%; sensitivity = 0.83; specificity = 0.97) in the out-of-sample replication in the UK. The mixed methods investigation identified five categories of modifiable risk tied to vaccine hesitancy, including illusion of invulnerability, doubts about vaccine efficacy, mistrust in official entities, minimization of the societal impact of COVID-19, and health-related fears tied to vaccination. The portrayal of rare incidents across alternative media platforms as fear amplifiers, and the mainstream media's stigmatizing presentation of unvaccinated individuals, were provided as additional motives underlying vaccine reluctance and polarization. The thematic analysis further revealed information overload, fear of needles, previous negative vaccination experiences, fear of not getting healthcare follow-up after vaccination if needed, and vaccine aversion due to underlying (psychiatric) illness (e.g., eating disorders) as motives underlying vaccine hesitance.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified influential predictors were consistent across two European samples, highlighting their generalizability across European populations. These predictors offer insights about modifiable factors that could be adapted by public health campaigns in mitigating misconceptions and fears related to vaccination toward increasing vaccine uptake. Moreover, the results highlight the media's responsibility, as mediators of the public perception of vaccines, to minimize polarization and provide accurate portrayals of rare vaccine-related incidents, reducing the risk aggravating fear and reactance to vaccination.

Prevalence, causes, impacts, and management of needle phobia: An international survey of a general adult population

Needle phobia is an overlooked condition that affects virtually all medical procedures. Our study aimed to identify how commonly needle phobia is experienced, its underlying reasons, impacts, and potential mitigation strategies. A global survey was conducted in a general adult population using a questionnaire based on a targeted literature review that identified under-researched areas. The 21-item questionnaire was completed on a secure, web-based survey platform. Statistical analyses and models were utilized to identify relationships between participant characteristics and needle phobia. Of the 2,098 participants enrolled in the study, 63.2% (n = 1,325) reported experiencing needle phobia, and rated the intensity of their fear as 5.7 (±2.6) on average on a scale from 0 (no fear) to 10 (very strong/unreasonable fear or avoidance). According to the logistic regression model, other medical fears (odds coefficient = 2.14) and family history (1.67) were the most important factors associated with needle phobia. General anxiety (96.1%) and pain (95.5%) were the most common reasons for needle fear. Of the participants experiencing needle phobia, 52.2% stated avoiding blood draws, followed by 49.0% for blood donations, and 33.1% for vaccinations. While 24.3% of participants have seen a therapist, most have never sought help. The majority have shared their fear with nurses (61.1%) or physicians (44.4%); however, the provider helpfulness was rated as 4.9 (±3.1) on average on a scale from 0 (unhelpful) to 10 (extremely helpful). Utilizing non-invasive alternatives (94.1%) and smaller needles (91.1%) were most commonly identified as potential device-related solutions to alleviate fear; distractions (92.1%) and relaxation techniques (91.7%) were the top non-device-related approaches. Our findings highlight the prevalent nature of needle phobia and provide insights into its etiology and effects on patient care. Clinician responses were not perceived as helpful, emphasizing the need to address needle phobia, and improve patient experience.

The prevalence and evidence-based management of needle fear in adults with chronic disease: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the prevalence and best management of needle fear in adults with chronic disease, who may experience frequent and long-term exposure to needles for lifesaving therapies such as renal dialysis and cancer treatment. Identifying interventions that assist in management of needle fear and associated distress is essential to support these patients with repeated needle and cannula exposure.

METHOD

We followed the PRISMA methodology for scoping reviews and systematically searched PsychINFO, PubMed (MEDLINE), ProQuest, Embase and grey literature and reference lists between 1989 and October 2020 for articles related to needle discomfort, distress, anxiety, fear or phobia. The following chronic diseases were included: arthritis, asthma, chronic back pain, cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and mental illness, or kidney failure. Literature concerning dentistry, vaccination, intravenous drug users and paediatric populations were excluded.

RESULTS

We identified 32 papers reporting prevalence (n = 24), management (n = 5) or both (n = 3). Needle fear prevalence varied in disease cohorts: 17-52% (cancer), 25-47% (chronic kidney disease) and 0.2-80% (diabetes). Assessment methods varied across studies. Management strategies had poor evidence-base, but included needle-specific education, decorated devices, cognitive-behavioural stress management techniques, distraction, and changing the therapy environment or modality.

CONCLUSION

Although needle fear is common there is a paucity of evidence regarding interventions to address it among adults living with chronic disease. This scoping review has highlighted the need for improved identification of needle fear in adults and development of interventions are required for these cohorts.

Distraction Technique for pain reduction in Peripheral Venous Catheterization: randomized, controlled trial

Background and aim of the work: Procedural pain during Peripheral Venous Catheterization (PVC) is a significant issue for patients. Reducing procedure-induced pain improves the quality of care and reduces patient discomfort. We aimed to compare a non-pharmacological technique (distraction) to anaesthetic cream (EMLA) for the reduction of procedural pain during PVC, in patients undergoing Computerized Tomography (CT) or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) with contrast. Methods: This is a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial. The study was carried out during the month of October 2015. A total of 72 patients undergoing PVC were randomly assigned to the experimental group (distraction technique, n=36) or control group (EMLA, n=36). After PVC, pain was evaluated by means of the numeric pain-rating scale (NRS). Pain perception was compared by means of Mann-Whitney Test. Results: The average pain in the distraction group was 0.69 (SD±1.26), with a median value of 0. The average pain in the EMLA group was 1.86 (SD±1.73), with a median value of 2. The study showed a significant improvement from the distraction technique (U=347, p<.001, r=.42) with respect to the local anaesthetic in reducing pain perception. Conclusions/Implication for practice: Distraction is more effective than local anaesthetic in reducing of pain-perception during PVC insertion. This study is one of few comparing the distraction technique to an anaesthetic. It confirms that the practitioner-patient relationship is an important point in nursing assistance, allowing the establishment of trust with the patient and increasing compliance during the treatment process.

Working out of the 'tool box': an exploratory study with complementary therapists in acute cancer care

AIMS

The aim of this research was to explore and capture complementary therapists' experiences of and preparation for working with patients in an acute cancer care setting.

METHOD

Semi structured interviews with therapists (n = 18) in an acute cancer hospital in the North West of England. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic coding.

RESULTS

Key themes identified included; the need for a 'tool box' of skills that develop beyond those taught in initial training, building confidence when adapting these new skills in practice, helping patients to become empowered, the need to support carers, research evidence and resources issues, and the role of supervision.

CONCLUSION

This study was limited by being set in a single acute cancer site. Therapists valued having a 'tool box' but needed confidence and support to navigate the challenges of clinical practice.

Psychiatric benefits of integrative therapies in patients with cancer

Integrative oncology uses non-pharmacological adjuncts to mainstream care to manage physical, emotional, and psychological symptoms experienced by cancer survivors. Depression, anxiety, fatigue and pain are among the common, often burdensome symptoms that can occur in clusters, deplete patient morale, interfere with treatment plans, and hamper recovery. Patients already seek various modalities on their own to address a broad range of problems. Legitimate complementary therapies offered at major cancer institutions improve quality of life, speed recovery, and optimize patient support. They also augment the benefits of psychiatric interventions, due to their ability to increase self-awareness and improve physical and psychological conditioning. Further, these integrated therapies provide lifelong tools and develop skills that patients use well after treatment to develop self-care regimens. The active referral of patients to integrative therapies achieves three important objectives: complementary care is received from therapists experienced in working with cancer patients, visits become part of the medical record, allowing treatment teams to guide individuals in maximizing benefit, and patients are diverted from useless or harmful 'alternatives.' We review the reciprocal physical and psychiatric benefits of exercise, mind-body practices, massage, acupuncture, and music therapy for cancer survivors, and suggest how their use can augment mainstream psychiatric interventions.