Samina Ali1,2, Keon Ma3, Nadia Dow4, Ben Vandermeer1,5, Shannon Scott6, Tanya Beran7, Amir Issawi1, Sarah Curtis1,2, Hsing Jou1,2, Timothy A D Graham4,8, Leanne Sigismund4, Lisa Hartling1,5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 2. Women & Children's Health Research Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. 3. Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 4. Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta. 5. Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 6. Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 7. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the addition of iPad distraction to standard care, versus standard care alone, to manage the pain and distress of intravenous (IV) cannulation. METHODS: Eighty-five children aged 6 to 11 years requiring IV cannulation (without child life services present) were recruited for a randomized controlled trial from a paediatric emergency department. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain (Faces Pain Scale-Revised [FPS-R]) and distress (Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised [OSBD-R]), analyzed with two-sample t-tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests, and regression analysis. RESULTS: Forty-two children received iPad distraction and 43 standard care; forty (95%) and 35 (81%) received topical anesthesia, respectively (P=0.09). There was no significant difference in procedural pain using an iPad (median [interquartile range]: 2.0 [0.0, 6.0]) in addition to standard care (2.0 [2.0, 6.0]) (P=0.35). There was no significant change from baseline behavioural distress using an iPad (mean ± SD: 0.53 ± 1.19) in addition to standard care (0.43 ± 1.56) (P=0.44). Less total behavioural distress was associated with having prior emergency department visits (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: -1.90 [-3.37, -0.43]) or being discharged home (-1.78 [-3.04, -0.52]); prior hospitalization was associated with greater distress (1.29 [0.09, 2.49]). Significantly more parents wished to have the same approach in the future in the iPad arm (41 of 41, 100%) compared to standard care (36 of 42, 86%) (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: iPad distraction during IV cannulation in school-aged children was not associated with less pain or distress than standard care alone. The effects of iPad distraction may have been blunted by topical anesthetic cream usage. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02326623.
OBJECTIVES: We compared the addition of iPad distraction to standard care, versus standard care alone, to manage the pain and distress of intravenous (IV) cannulation. METHODS: Eighty-five children aged 6 to 11 years requiring IV cannulation (without child life services present) were recruited for a randomized controlled trial from a paediatric emergency department. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain (Faces Pain Scale-Revised [FPS-R]) and distress (Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised [OSBD-R]), analyzed with two-sample t-tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests, and regression analysis. RESULTS: Forty-two children received iPad distraction and 43 standard care; forty (95%) and 35 (81%) received topical anesthesia, respectively (P=0.09). There was no significant difference in procedural pain using an iPad (median [interquartile range]: 2.0 [0.0, 6.0]) in addition to standard care (2.0 [2.0, 6.0]) (P=0.35). There was no significant change from baseline behavioural distress using an iPad (mean ± SD: 0.53 ± 1.19) in addition to standard care (0.43 ± 1.56) (P=0.44). Less total behavioural distress was associated with having prior emergency department visits (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: -1.90 [-3.37, -0.43]) or being discharged home (-1.78 [-3.04, -0.52]); prior hospitalization was associated with greater distress (1.29 [0.09, 2.49]). Significantly more parents wished to have the same approach in the future in the iPad arm (41 of 41, 100%) compared to standard care (36 of 42, 86%) (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: iPad distraction during IV cannulation in school-aged children was not associated with less pain or distress than standard care alone. The effects of iPad distraction may have been blunted by topical anesthetic cream usage. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02326623.
Authors: Lindsay S Uman; Kathryn A Birnie; Melanie Noel; Jennifer A Parker; Christine T Chambers; Patrick J McGrath; Steve R Kisely Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-10-10
Authors: Kate Miller; Xianghong Tan; Andrew Dillon Hobson; Asaduzzaman Khan; Jenny Ziviani; Eavan OʼBrien; Kim Barua; Craig A McBride; Roy M Kimble Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.454