A longitudinal examination of the interpersonal fear avoidance model of pain:the role of intolerance of uncertainty

Youth with chronic pain and their parents face uncertainty regarding their diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Given the uncertain nature of chronic pain and high comorbidity of anxiety among youth, intolerance of uncertainty (IU) may be critical to the experience of pediatric chronic pain. This study longitudinally examined major tenets of the Interpersonal Fear Avoidance Model of Pain and included parent and youth IU as key factors in the model. Participants included 152 youth with chronic pain (Mage = 14.23 years; 72% female) and their parents (93% female). At baseline, parents and youth reported on their IU and catastrophic thinking about youth pain; youth reported on their fear of pain, pain intensity, and pain interference; and parents reported on their protective responses to child pain. Youth reported on their pain interference 3 months later. Cross-lagged panel models, controlling for baseline pain interference, showed that greater parent IU predicted greater parent pain catastrophizing, which, in turn, predicted greater parent protectiveness, greater youth fear of pain, and subsequently greater youth 3-month pain interference. Youth IU had a significant indirect effect on 3-month pain interference through youth pain catastrophizing and fear of pain. The results suggest that parent and youth IU contribute to increases in youth pain interference over time through increased pain catastrophizing, parent protectiveness, and youth fear of pain. Thus, parent and youth IU play important roles as risk factors in the maintenance of pediatric chronic pain over time and may be important targets for intervention.</p

Far from just a poke : Common painful needle procedures and the development of needle fear

Background: Vaccine injections are the most common painful needle procedure experienced throughout the lifespan. Many strategies are available to mitigate this pain; however, they are uncommonly utilized, leading to unnecessary pain and suffering. Some individuals develop a high level of fear and subsequent needle procedures are associated with significant distress. Objective: The present work is part of an update and expansion of a 2009 knowledge synthesis to include the management of vaccinerelated pain across the lifespan and the treatment of individuals with high levels of needle fear. This article will provide a conceptual foundation for understanding: (a) painful procedures and their role in the development and maintenance of high levels of fear; (b) treatment strategies for preventing or reducing the experience of pain and the development of fear; and (c) interventions for mitigating high levels of fear once they are established. Results: First, the general definitions, lifespan development and functionality, needle procedure-related considerations, and assessment of the following constructs are provided: pain, fear, anxiety, phobia, distress, and vasovagal syncope. Second, the importance of unmitigated pain from needle procedures is highlighted from a developmental perspective. Third, the prevalence, course, etiology, and consequences of high levels of needle fear are described. Finally, the management of needle-related pain and fear are outlined to provide an introduction to the series of systematic reviews in this issue. Discussion: Through the body of work in this supplement, the authors aim to provide guidance in how to treat vaccination-related pain and its sequelae, including high levels of needle fear

Process interventions for vaccine injections: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials

Background: This 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/Methods: Databases 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). Results: Thirteen 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). Conclusions: Educating 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

Psychological interventions for vaccine injections in children and adolescents: Systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials

Background: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of psychological interventions for reducing vaccination pain and related outcomes in children and adolescents. Design/Methods: Database searches identified relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted and pooled using established methods. Pain, fear, and distress were considered critically important outcomes. Results: Twenty-two studies were included; 2 included adolescents. Findings showed no benefit of false suggestion (n=240) for pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.21 [-0.47, 0.05]) or distress (SMD -0.28 [-0.59, 0.11]), or for use of repeated reassurance (n=82) for pain (SMD -0.18 [-0.92, 0.56]), fear (SMD -0.18 [-0.71, 0.36]), or distress (SMD 0.10 [-0.33, 0.54]). Verbal distraction (n=46) showed reduced distress (SMD -1.22 [-1.87, -0.58]), but not reduced pain (SMD -0.27 [-1.02, 0.47]). Similarly, video distraction (n=328) showed reduced distress (SMD -0.58 [-0.82, -0.34]), but not reduced pain (SMD -0.88 [-1.78, 0.02]) or fear (SMD 0.08 [-0.25, 0.41]). Music distraction demonstrated reduced pain when used with children (n=417) (SMD -0.45 [-0.71, -0.18]), but not with adolescents (n=118) (SMD -0.04 [-0.42, 0.34]). Breathing with a toy (n=368) showed benefit for pain (SMD -0.49 [-0.85, -0.13]), but not fear (SMD -0.60 [-1.22, 0.02]); whereas breathing without a toy (n=136) showed no benefit for pain (SMD -0.27 [-0.61, 0.07]) or fear (SMD -0.36 [-0.86, 0.15]). There was no benefit for a breathing intervention (cough) in children and adolescents (n=136) for pain (SMD -0.17 [-0.41, 0.07]). Conclusions: Psychological interventions with some evidence of benefit in children include: verbal distraction, video distraction, music distraction, and breathing with a toy

HELPinKids & Adults knowledge synthesis of the management of vaccination pain and high levels of needle fear limitations of the evidence and recommendations for future research

The HELPinKids&Adults knowledge synthesis for the management of vaccination-related pain and high levels of needle fear updated and expanded upon the 2010 HELPinKIDS knowledge synthesis and clinical practice guideline for pain mitigation during vaccine injections in childhood. Interventions for vaccine pain management in adults and treatment of individuals with high levels of needle fear, phobias, or both were included, thereby broadening the reach of this work. The present paper outlines the overarching limitations of this diverse evidence base and provides recommendations for future research. Consistent with the framing of clinical questions in the systematic reviews, the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design (PICOAS) framework was used to organize these predominant issues and research directions. The major limitations we identified across systematic reviews were an overall dearth of trials on vaccination, lack of methodological rigor, failure to incorporate important outcomes, poor study reporting, and various sources of heterogeneity. Future research directions in terms of conducting additional trials in the vaccination context, improving methodological quality and rigor, assessment of global acceptability and feasibility of interventions, and inclusion of outcomes that stakeholders consider to be important (eg, compliance) are recommended. Given concerns about pain and fear are known contributors to vaccine hesitancy, improving and expanding this evidence base will be integral to broader efforts to improve vaccine compliance and public health worldwide

Exposure-based Interventions for the management of individuals with high levels of needle fear across the lifespan: a clinical practice guideline and call for further research

Needle fear typically begins in childhood and represents an important health-related issue across the lifespan. Individuals who are highly fearful of needles frequently avoid health care. Although guidance exists for managing needle pain and fear during procedures, the most highly fearful may refuse or abstain from such procedures. The purpose of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide actionable instruction on the management of a particular health concern; this guidance emerges from a systematic process. Using evidence from a rigorous systematic review interpreted by an expert panel, this CPG provides recommendations on exposure-based interventions for high levels of needle fear in children and adults. The AGREE-II, GRADE, and Cochrane methodologies were used. Exposure-based interventions were included. The included evidence was very low quality on average. Strong recommendations include the following. In vivo (live/in person) exposure-based therapy is recommended (vs. no treatment) for children seven years and older and adults with high levels of needle fear. Non-in vivo (imaginal, computer-based) exposure (vs. no treatment) is recommended for individuals (over seven years of age) who are unwilling to undergo in vivo exposure. Although there were no included trials which examined children \u3c 7 years, exposure-based interventions are discussed as good clinical practice. Implementation considerations are discussed and clinical tools are provided. Utilization of these recommended practices may lead to improved health outcomes due to better health care compliance. Research on the understanding and treatment of high levels of needle fear is urgently needed; specific recommendations are provided

Interventions for individuals with high levels of needle fear: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials

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 exposurebased 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

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

Factorial Validity of the English-Language Version of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale–Child Version

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was developed in English to assess 3 components of catastrophizing (rumination, magnification, helplessness). It has been adapted for use and validated with Flemish-speaking children (Pain Catastrophizing Scale for Children [PCS-C]) and French-speaking adolescents. The PCS-C has been back-translated to English and used extensively in research with English-speaking children; however, the factorial validity of the English PCS-C has not been empirically examined. This study assessed the factor structure of the English PCS-C among a community sample of 1,006 English-speaking children (aged 8–18 years). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using a random subsample (n = 504) to assess the underlying factor structure. Items with poor factor loadings were removed. Confirmatory factor analysis, using the second subsample (n = 502), was used to cross-validate the factor structure revealed by exploratory factor analysis and compare it to the original 3-factor model and other model variants. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the original PCS-C and a revised 3-factor model comprising 11 of the original 13 PCS-C items, all loading on their original factors, provided adequate fit to the data. The revised model provided statistically better fit to the data compared to all other model variants, suggesting that the English PCS-C may be better understood using a revised 11-item oblique 3-factor model. Perspective: This is the first examination of the factorial validity of the widely used English version of the PCS-C in a large community sample of English-speaking children. A revised 11-item, 3-factor model provided statistically better fit to the data compared to the original model and other model variants