Dataset Information

Interventions for Individuals With High Levels of Needle Fear: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of exposure-based psychological and physical interventions for the management of high levels of needle fear and/or phobia and fainting in children and adults.

Design/methods

A systematic review identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of children, adults, or both with high levels of needle fear, including phobia (if not available, then populations with other specific phobias were included). Critically important outcomes were self-reported fear specific to the feared situation and stimulus (psychological interventions) or fainting (applied muscle tension). Data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

The systematic review included 11 trials. In vivo exposure-based therapy for children 7 years and above showed benefit on specific fear (n=234; SMD: -1.71 [95% CI: -2.72, -0.7]). In vivo exposure-based therapy with adults reduced fear of needles posttreatment (n=20; SMD: -1.09 [-2.04, -0.14]) but not at 1-year follow-up (n=20; SMD: -0.28 [-1.16, 0.6]). Compared with single session, a benefit was observed for multiple sessions of exposure-based therapy posttreatment (n=93; SMD: -0.66 [-1.08, -0.24]) but not after 1 year (n=83; SMD: -0.37 [-0.87, 0.13]). Non in vivo e.g., imaginal exposure-based therapy in children reduced specific fear posttreatment (n=41; SMD: -0.88 [-1.7, -0.05]) and at 3 months (n=24; SMD: -0.89 [-1.73, -0.04]). Non in vivo exposure-based therapy for adults showed benefit on specific fear (n=68; SMD: -0.62 [-1.11, -0.14]) but not procedural fear (n=17; SMD: 0.18 [-0.87, 1.23]). Applied tension showed benefit on fainting posttreatment (n=20; SMD: -1.16 [-2.12, -0.19]) and after 1 year (n=20; SMD: -0.97 [-1.91, -0.03]) compared with exposure alone.

Conclusions

Exposure-based psychological interventions and applied muscle tension show evidence of benefit in the reduction of fear in pediatric and adult populations.

SUBMITTER: McMurtry CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4900415 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions for Individuals With High Levels of Needle Fear: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials.

McMurtry C Meghan CM Noel Melanie M Taddio Anna A Antony Martin M MM Asmundson Gordon J G GJ Riddell Rebecca Pillai RP Chambers Christine T CT Shah Vibhuti V

The Clinical journal of pain 20151001 10 Suppl

<h4>Background</h4>This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of exposure-based psychological and physical interventions for the management of high levels of needle fear and/or phobia and fainting in children and adults.<h4>Design/methods</h4>A systematic review identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of children, adults, or both with high levels of needle fear, including phobia (if not available, then populations with other specific phobias were included). ...[more]

PMID: 26352916

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The evaluation of web-based interventions (defined as an intervention that can be downloaded or accessed on the internet through a web browser) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased over the past two decades. Little is known about how participants' use of the intervention is measured, reported, and analyzed in these studies. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to review the evaluation of web-based interventions in RCTs, assessing study characteristics and the methods used to record, and adjust for, intervention usage. METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all published reports of RCTs that involved a web-based intervention. A random sample of 100 published trials was selected for detailed data extraction. Information on trial characteristics was extracted, including whether web usage data were recorded, and if so, the methods used to gather these data and whether these data were used to inform efficacy analyses. RESULTS:A PubMed search identified 812 trials of web-based interventions published up to the end of 2017 and demonstrated a growing trend over time. Of the 100 studies reviewed, 90 studies collected web usage data, but more than half (49/90, 54%) of these studies did not state the method used for recording web usage. Only four studies attempted to check on the reliability of their web usage data collection methods. A total of 39% (35/90) studies reported patterns or levels of web intervention use, of which 21% (19/90) studies adjusted for intervention use in their outcome analysis, but only two of these used appropriate statistical methods. CONCLUSIONS:Trialists frequently report a measure of web-based intervention usage but do not always report the collection method or provide enough detail on their analysis of web usage. Appropriate statistical methods to account for intervention use are rarely used and are not well reported even in the very few trials in which they are used. The number of trialists who attempt to check on the reliability of their web usage collection methods is extremely low.

Dataset Information

Interventions for Individuals With High Levels of Needle Fear: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Design/methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Interventions for Individuals With High Levels of Needle Fear: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets