Exploring key elements of approaches that support childrens' preferences during painful and stressful medical procedures: A scoping review

PROBLEM

Children undergoing medical procedures can experience pain and distress. While numerous interventions exist to mitigate pain and distress, the ability to individualize the intervention to suit the needs and preferences of individual children is emerging as an important aspect of providing family-centered care and shared decision making. To date, the approaches for supporting children to express their preferences have not been systematically identified and described. A scoping review was conducted to identify such approaches and to describe the elements that are included in them.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that (a) described approaches with the aim to support children to express their coping preferences during medical procedures; (b) included the option for children to choose coping interventions; (c) included a child (1--18 years).

SAMPLE

Searches were conducted in December 2019 and November 2020 in the following databases: Cinahl, Embase, PubMed and Psycinfo.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified that included six distinct approaches. Four important key elements were identified: 1) Aid to express preferences or choice, 2) Information Provision, 3) Assessment of feelings/emotions, 4) Feedback/Reflection and Reward.

CONCLUSIONS

Identified approaches incorporate components of shared decision-making to support children in expressing their preferences during medical procedures and treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

Children undergoing medical procedures can be supported in expressing their coping needs and preferences by using components of shared decision-making.

Virtual reality distraction for acute pain in children

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision. 1: VR distraction versus no distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: no data. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group. Observer-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group. 2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants: Self-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence). Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence). Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference. Observer-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Adverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion. 3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction We did not identify any studies for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.

Local Trends in the Evaluation and Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections and Vesicoureteral Reflux in Children

INTRODUCTION

The management of urinary tract infection in children has changed in the last decade due to worries about antibiotic overuse, and the trauma and radiation of voiding cystourethrograms. We examined whether there has been a change in the management of pediatric urinary tract infection in our practice.

METHODS

We reviewed billing records from 2005 to 2013 to determine the number of voiding cystourethrograms performed as well as the number of operations (open and endoscopic) for vesicoureteral reflux. We also determined the number of patients seen in the office for urinary tract infection or vesicoureteral reflux and hospital admissions for urinary tract infection or pyelonephritis.

RESULTS

There was a dramatic decrease in the number of voiding cystourethrograms performed from 907 in 2005 to 216 in 2013. The number of operations for vesicoureteral reflux increased to a peak of 73 in 2007 and decreased to 17 in 2013. Office visits for urinary tract infection or vesicoureteral reflux were unchanged from 2006 to 2013 (602 and 470, respectively). Pediatric hospitalizations for urinary tract infection trended only slightly upward from 2005 to 2013 (71 and 84, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate a marked decrease in the diagnosis and treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in the last decade with no significant change in the number of patients seen for urinary tract infection. If confirmed nationally, this has major clinical, educational and health care quality improvement implications.