Mariela Bustamante Fernández1,2*
Line Caes3
José Iván Rossel1,2
Genesis Díaz Díaz2
Gabriela Ruiz Valenzuela4
Scarlett Caroca Madariaga4
Nicole Klein Vallecillo2
Sofía Hidalgo Vilche2
Valeska Tapia Espinoza4
Mariana González Zamarin5
Katherine Strasser5
- 1Department of Pediatrics and Child Surgery, West Campus, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
- 2School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
- 3Division of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom
- 4School of Medicine, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
- 5School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
The experience of invasive medical procedures (IMP) in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) is often highly stressful for children and adolescents and potentially leads to short- and long-term biopsychosocial consequences. To address these challenges, psychological and sensory strategies have been developed to mitigate negative outcomes and enhance children's adaptive coping PEDs.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of psychological and sensory interventions on pediatric pain, fear, and distress during PEDs.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA 2020 Statement (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023403583). Searches were performed in PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for studies published between January 2004 and September 2024. Randomized controlled trials involving children aged 2–18 years undergoing IMPs in PEDs. The qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) web versioN.Effect sizes were estimated using Z-scores (Z), p-values (p), and standardized mean differences (SMD).
Results: A total of 1,796 records were retrieved (PubMed = 513, PsycInfo = 148, CINAHL = 516, SCOPUS = 183, Web of Science = 436); 45 were retained for the meta-analysis. Psychosensory interventions were grouped into seven subcategories: Somato-Sensory, Immersive Reality, Screen-Based, Toy Interaction, Social Interaction, Active Command, and Unisensory Distractions. The meta-analysis revealed significant reductions in both self-reported pain and fear (Z = 7.66/6.18, p < 0.01; SMD = −0.94/−1.30) and observed pain and fear (Z = 6.27/5.28, p < 0.01; SMD = −1.52/−1.77) across all intervention categories. The most effective interventions were pre-procedural informational videos (Z = 21.54/21.24, p < 0.01; SMD = −2.40/−2.18) and somato-sensory procedural distraction (Z = 5.37, p < 0.01; SMD = −1.08). Playful social interaction strategies (Z = 7.38, p < 0.01; SMD = −1.20), behavioral command (Z = 6.22/4.41, p < 0.01; SMD = −1.05/−0.87), and immersive reality (Z = 4.66, p < 0.01; SMD = −0.95) were also found to reduce observer-reported distress. However, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in the results (I2 > 90%/98), which warrants a cautious interpretation.
Discussion: Both pre-procedural preparation strategies and somatosensory procedural distractions are promising approaches for managing stressful experiences in PED settings. These approaches may address the sensory, cognitive, and emotional components of procedural pain, fear and distress. The evidence obtained could inform the development of clinical protocols aimed at optimizing children' experiences in PEDs and potentially minimizing long-term psychological and somatosensory consequences.
Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023403583, PROSPERO CRD42023403583.
Introduction
Facing invasive medical procedures (IMPs) in a pediatric emergency department (PED) can be a stressful and potentially traumatic experience for children and adolescents (1–3), as it involves greater stressors compared to other healthcare contexts (4, 5). The structure and functioning of a PED are characterized by a crowded and fast-paced environment, unpredictability, and sensory overstimulation across admission, diagnosis, and treatment (6–11). This process is also frequently compounded by stressors related to the acute illness that prompted the visit, caregiver stress levels, and the procedural pain experience itself (12–18). Furthermore, IMPs in PEDs often involve high levels of anticipatory fear and procedural pain (19), which may increase behavioural distress, and in effect, child verbal and physical resistance, leading to higher stress for caregivers and healthcare personnel (19–21). High behavioral distress may also imply prolonged procedures and lower efficiency required in PEDs (22, 23).
Pain experiences, fear, and behavioral distress in PEDs not only impact the immediate experience of the pediatric patient but can also have long-term psychological and somatosensory consequences. Psychologically, there is a significant link between negative pre-hospital and hospital experiences and the development of negative pain memories, anxiety, depression, avoidance behaviors, unnecessary visits, and poor adherence to health advice (24–27). From a somatosensory perspective, neuroscience studies suggest that children may be at higher risk of developing central sensitization (28–30), leading to increased pain sensitivity, lowered pain thresholds, chronic pain, and lasting changes in pain pathways (28, 31–35). Therefore, it is essential to identify interventions that are both effective and efficient in PEDs to improve patient experiences and reduce immediate and long-term complications (36).
Some psychological and sensory interventions have proven effective in reducing pain, fear, and behavioral distress in outpatient IMPs (37). Sensory interventions involve the use of specific sensory stimuli (tactile, auditory, visual, proprioceptive, vestibular) to enhance sensory regulation and adaptive response to painful stimuli (38, 39). Psychological interventions integrate cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social elements in the modulation of pain (40–42). Psychosensory interventions, in this context, refer to strategies that integrate both sensory stimulation and psychological regulation processes to influence pain perception and emotional responses. The theoretical and empirical foundations of how psychosensory approaches support a biopsychosocial modulation of pain are promising for advancing understanding of the mechanisms underlying their effectiveness (43, 44). Despite the growing use and evaluation of psychosensory approaches in PEDs, a comprehensive overview of their comparative effectiveness remains limited, which is crucial for appropriate evidence-based implementations within this complex setting. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to: (1) analyze and summarize the current state-of-the-art evidence (acquired through randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) on the effectiveness of psychological and sensory interventions in managing pain, fear, and distress in children undergoing IMPs in PEDs; and (2) analyze the methodological rigor and quality of the RCTs included in the review.
Materials and methods
Procedure
The study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, 2020) Statement to ensure transparency and thoroughness at all stages of the process (45). Searches were conducted over the last two decades (January 2004–September 2024), ensuring methodological and contextual relevance to current PEDs.
Literature search
A systematic review of RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of psychological and/or sensory strategies to manage pediatric pain, fear, and behavioral distress was conducted, according to the pre-registered protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42023403583). The search terms focused on these primary outcomes, using combinations of descriptors such as “Children OR Adolescent,” “Psychological OR Sensory Intervention,” “Pain OR Fear OR Distress,” and “Emergency Department,” connected with the Boolean operator AND (see Supplementary Material 1). Boolean phrases were adapted to the thesauri of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Gray literature was not included. However, backward and forward snowballing were performed on the reference lists and citations of the included studies to identify any eligible RCTs not captured in the primary database search.
These outcomes were prioritized because they represent the core emotional and behavioral manifestations of procedural stress in children, which are directly observable or self-reported and clinically relevant for evaluating the effectiveness of psychosensory interventions. Physiological or biological indicators (e.g., heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, cortisol) were retained as complementary secondary outcomes when reported alongside emotional or behavioral measures, as they provide additional information about autonomic activation associated with procedural stress. However, these indicators were not included as specific search terms, as they were outside the scope of the main research question.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (1) Studies published from 2004 onwards; (2) studies published in English or Spanish; (3) RCTs; (4) studies with at least one control group with usual care; (5) children aged 2–18 years; (6) studies evaluating a psychological, sensory, or mixed psychosensory intervention implemented within PED care; (7) PED as the setting intervention; (8) sample undergoing at least one IMPs for diagnosis or treatment purposes (e.g., intravenous line, blood sample, or injections); (9) studies evaluating pain, fear, or behavioral distress as outcomes assessed through self-report or observer-report.
Studies were excluded if: (1) children had a severe chronic diagnosis that could interfere with outcomes (e.g., cancer, cystic fibrosis); (2) studies were caregiver-focused only; (3) hospitalization or outpatient settings; (4) interventions applied only on the waiting room or post-discharge; (5) PED care without IMPs; (6) sample size below 30 children, and (7) studies focusing exclusively on physiological or biochemical parameters.
Selection process
The article selection process is presented in the PRISMA flowchart (see Figure 1). Two reviewers (MB and VT) independently selected the articles meeting the eligibility criteria by first reviewing all identified titles and abstracts, and subsequently all full texts selected after the abstract selection. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers (MB and GD) using a predefined extraction form, which included: study design, sample size, type of IMPs, participant demographic information (age, gender), details of interventions (type, duration, frequency, and timing), outcomes measured (self-reported, observed pain, fear, behavioral distress as well as biological markers), and statistical results (mean differences, standard deviations [SD], p-values, and confidence intervals [CI]) (see Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Risk of bias
The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool (46). This tool classifies studies according to the risk of bias in six domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete outcome data. Each study was categorized as having high, moderate, or low risk in each domain, allowing for a nuanced and accurate assessment of the methodological quality and internal validity of the trials included in the analysis. The risk of bias for each included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers (MB and IR), with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer (LC).
Meta-analysis
A bibliometric analysis of the selected RCTs was performed to gain an in-depth overview of the study characteristics and obsolescence across all the evidence. Obsolescence was calculated by means of the Burton-Kebler (Calculates the median age of cited articles to determine the “half-life” of the literature) and Prince index (Measures the percentage of cited articles that are less than a specified 5 years).
Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled effect sizes of psychosensory interventions on self-reported or observed pain, fear, and behavioral distress. Review Manager (RevMan) Web version endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration was used, to compute the effect sizes (Z-value and standardized mean difference [SMD]) and design of the forest plots. Effect sizes are reported along with a 95% CI and presented both quantitatively and graphically using forest plots. In these forest plots, each trial is visually represented as a horizontal diamond shape, where the center indicates the effect size, and the end points represent the CI limits.
Random-effects models (inverse-variance method) were selected a priori, given the anticipated clinical and methodological diversity among studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi2 and I2 statistics. The Chi2 statistic is used to determine if the variation among studies is significant. A low Chi2 and high p-value indicate no significant heterogeneity, suggesting consistency across studies. A high Chi2 and low p-value indicate significant heterogeneity, suggesting variations greater than expected by chance. On the other hand, the I2 statistic measures is used to determine the proportion of total variation due to heterogeneity. I2 providing a percentage that indicates the degree of inconsistency in the results, and I2 value of 25% indicates low heterogeneity, 50% moderate, and 75% high heterogeneity.
Subgroup analyses were pre-registered in PROSPERO to explore potential differences by (a) procedure type, (b) age range, and (c) adult intervention (type and if was performed by parental or professional). Quantitative subgroup analysis was feasible only by intervention modality, as mostly included studies involved venipuncture or intravenous procedures, and only one study specified exclusive parental implementation. No meta-regression was conducted, given the limited number of studies per subgroup and the diversity of designs.
Accordingly, effect sizes were calculated for seven intervention subtypes, identified and analyzed based on the type of stimulus involved in each psychosensory strategy: (1) Somato-Sensory includes interventions providing direct tactile or kinesthetic stimulation, such as vibratory (Buzzy) or cold devices (Cold Stray, Ice gel) and tactile stimulators (e.g., shotblocker). (2) Immersive Reality, which uses Virtual reality (VR) devices to engage children in simulated experiences, either through passive observation or active interaction. (3) Screen-based, uses audio-visual distractions screens, such as cartoons video and video games. (4) Toy interaction use toys to capture the child's attention during the procedure, with or without handling. (5) Social interaction includes dynamic activities with others (e.g., medical clowns, robots, caregivers or child life specialists (CLS). (6) Active command, involve simple commands to cope with the situation and require the child's active participation, such as squeezing a stress ball, whistling, or blowing soap bubbles. (7) Unisensory distractions involve simple cognitive or visual interventions, like viewing cards, vein imaging device (VID) or listening to music, without combining multiple sensory stimuli.
Sensitivity analyses were not performed, as the primary objective of this review was to estimate the overall effectiveness of psychosensory interventions across heterogeneous designs. Given the diversity of interventions and outcome measures, excluding studies based on methodological quality or sample size would have substantially reduced statistical power.
Results
Article selection
A total of 1,796 articles were identified by the searches. After removing 269 duplicates, 1,527 titles and abstracts were screened, revealing 155 abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text screening. After full-text screening, 45 articles were selected for final inclusion, one of which was identified through backward snowballing after full-text screening. The main reasons for exclusion were: (1) irrelevant sample, as some studies included adults or focused on age groups not related to the review, such as neonates; (2) not pertinent and setting intervention with studies not applied in PED; (3) unrelated intervention, with some studies addressing pharmacological approaches instead of psychological or sensory interventions; (4) inappropriate type of procedure, excluding studies that did not focus on IMPs; (5) non-experimental or quasi-experimental study design; and (6) absence of relevant outcomes, where studies did not measure outcomes such as pain, fear, or distress during the procedure (see Figure 1).
The total sample size across the 45 articles was N = 6,480 children (3,087 females and 3,393 males). The mean age of participants was 7.34 with a of SD 3.26. The mean age of articles was 3.76 years, with a SD of 4.57, 95% CI [3.24, 5.91]. The most recent article was 4 months old, with the oldest being 20 years old. The obsolescence of the RCTs, considering a Burton-Kebler index and Prince index, showed a median of 2 years, with 84.44% of the RCTs being less than 5 years old. The 45 studies were conducted in 13 countries, mainly in Turkey (n = 19; 42.2%), Canada (n = 9; 20.0%), and the United States (n = 4; 8.9%). The remaining studies came from 10 other countries across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East (see Table 1).
The following sections present the outcomes for pain, fear, and distress, as reported by either children or observers, across all the interventions as well as grouped by these intervention categories. Results are presented in order of effectiveness of the intervention category. Due the limited findings for biomarkers, the results for biomarkers could not be organized by intervention category, hence these findings are organized according to the assessed biomarker instead.
Pain
Thirty-seven studies evaluated the effectiveness in reducing pain, demonstrating significant reductions in both self-reported and observer-reported pain. For self-reported pain, the overall effect test yielded a Z value of 7.66 (p < 0.01), with a total SMD of −0.94 (95% CI: −1.19, −0.70). Subgroup analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity, evidenced by Chi2454.17 (df = 17, p < 0.01) and an I2 of 96.3%. For observer-reported pain the overall effect yielded a Z value of 6.27 (p < 0.01) with an SMD of −1.52 (95% CI: −2.05, −0.99). The substantial heterogeneity was evidenced by Chi2264.40 (df = 11, p < 0.01), reflecting an I2 95.8%. Below is a summary for the effectiveness of the intervention category, ordered by the efficacy of the interventions (SMD, Z and p-values are in Table 2).
Table 2 (Part A):. Summary of Z-scores, p-values, and SMD of pain, fear and distress during the procedure.
Table 2 (Part B):. Summary of Z-scores, p-values, and SMD of biological markers during the procedure.
Table 2 (Part C):. Summary of Z-scores, p-values, and SMD of biological markers after the procedure.
Table 3. Summary measures and application timing.
Somato-Sensory (N = 15 studies): Buzzy or vibration, cold spray, and Shotblocker significantly reduced pain both types of reports (47–61). Manual Tactile significantly reduced observer-reported pain (57), while it only approached significance for self-reported pain (57, 61). Ice gel approached significance only for observer-reported pain (48), while it did not reach statistical significance for self-reported pain (48).
Screen-Based (N = 9 studies): Informational videos were effective in reducing self-reported and observer-reported pain (62). For observer-reported pain, Ditto device in its 3 versions, [Distraction (D), Preparation (PP), and both Combined (C)], ceiling-mounted VR (63, 64), and cartoons screens showed a significant effect (65–70).
Toy-Interaction (N = 2 studies): Rotating tactile, musical bracelet, and kaleidoscope were effective in reducing pain for both self-reported and observer-reported measures (71, 72).
Unisensory-Distractions (N = 5 studies): For self-reported pain, viewing cards and listening to music were effective in reducing pain (61, 70, 72, 73), while VID did not reach statistical significance (74).
Immersive Reality (N = 10 studies): VR glasses showed significant results for self-reported pain but did not reach significance for observer-reported pain (58, 65, 72, 74–77). VR video games were not significant in reducing self-reported pain but approached significance in observer-reported pain (68, 78, 79).
Active-Command (N = 4 studies): Squeezing a stress ball and the palm stimulator were significantly effective in reducing self-reported and observer-reported pain (60, 80). Blowing soap bubbles was effective in reducing self-reported pain but did not reach significance in observer-reported pain (58, 79). Whistling approached significance for self-reported pain (53).
Social-Interaction (N = 5 studies): Robot were significantly effective in reducing self-reported pain (81), while neither parental distraction (82) nor medical clowns (83–85) reached statistical significance in the same measure.
Fear
Twenty-six studies evaluated the impact of interventions on their effectiveness of reducing fear. The analysis revealed a significant reduction in self-reported fear, with an overall effect test of Z = 6.18 (p < 0.01) and a total SMD of −1.30 (95% CI: −1.71, −0.89). Subgroup analysis indicated substantial variability, as reflected in the Chi2 = 392.44 (df = 14, p < 0.01) and an I2 96%. Similarly, for observer-reported fear (evaluated in thirteen studies) a significant effect was demonstrated, with an overall effect of Z = 5.28 (p < 0.01) and an SMD of −1.77 (95% CI: −2.43, −0.16). The subgroup differences highlighted significant heterogeneity, with Chi2 = 166.02 (df = 9, p < 0.01) and an I2 94.6%.
Somato-Sensory (N = 9 studies): Cold Spray, Buzzy, and Shotblocker were significantly effective in reducing both self-reported and observer-reported fear (48, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59). Ice Gel approached significance for both types of reports (48), while Manual Tactile did not reach significance in either of them (49, 57, 60).
Toy-Interaction (N = 3 studies): Rotating tactile, musical bracelet, and viewing a kaleidoscope were significantly effective in reducing both self-reported and observer-reported fear (71, 72). In contrast, musical and dancing toys (MDT) did not reach significance for either type of report (86).
Unisensory-Distractions (N = 3 studies): Listening to music was effective in reducing self-reported fear (72). Cartoon-patterned clothes demonstrated significant results for reducing self-reported fear (87), while the VID did not reach significance for either type of report (74).
Immersive-Reality (N = 10 studies): VR headset videos significantly reduced self-reported fear, but did not reach significance in observer-reported fear (58, 65, 72, 74–77). VR video games (68, 78, 79) showed no significant reduction in self-reported fear.
Active-Command (N = 5 studies): Blowing soap bubbles and squeezing a stress ball significantly reduced both self-reported and observer-reported fear (59, 80, 87). However, whistling was only effective in reducing self-reported fear (53), and Palm Stimulator was not significant in any measurement (60).
Screen-Based (N = 4 studies): Informational videos and cartoons were significantly effective in reducing both self-reported fear and observer-reported (62, 65, 68) and ceiling-mounted VR screens for observer-reported (63).
Distress
The studies (N = 17) evaluated the effectiveness in reducing observer-reported distress in children during IMPs in PEDs and included combined results from parental, healthcare staff, and researcher perceptions. The pooled effects analysis showed a significant effect for observer-reported distress reduction (Z = 4.38, −0.57 [−0.83, −0.32] p < 0.01). The differences between subgroups were also significant (Chi2 = 59.84, df = 13, p < 0.01; I2 = 78.3%), suggesting variability in the efficacy of the different categories of intervention.
Active-Command (N = 1 study): Blowing soap bubbles significantly reduced distress level (87).
Immersive Reality (N = 5 studies): VR video games and VR goggles were effective in reducing distress (58, 74, 75, 78, 88).
Screen-Based (N = 4 studies): The Ditto device (64) (D-PP-C) and video games (64) showed a significant effect in reducing distress, while cartoons and ceiling-mounted VR screens did not reach significance (63, 64, 69, 70).
Social Interaction (N = 4 studies): Finger puppet significantly reduced observer-reported distress (89). Robot, caregivers and CLS support did not reach significance (81, 82, 90).
Unisensory-Distractions (N = 4 studies): Cartoon-patterned clothes (colorful animated characters), demonstrated modest but significant results (87). Listening to music was not effective in reducing distress (70, 73), and VID showed a trend toward significance (74).
Somato-Sensory (N = 4 studies): Buzzy were not significant in reducing distress (47, 52, 58, 91).
Biological markers
Only seven studies evaluated biological markers during the procedure (58, 66, 69, 73, 78, 81, 86), while five studies assessed them post-procedure (58, 62, 69, 70, 86).
For Heart Rate (HR), informational videos significantly reduced post-procedural HR (62), while VR glasses and MDT significantly increased heart rate post-procedure (86). Buzzy showed no significant effect on post-procedural HR (58). During the procedure, no significant changes were observed for HR in most of the evaluated interventions (58, 62, 66, 70, 73, 81, 86). Only one study reported a significant reduction of HR (cartoon intervention, p < 0.01) (69) but without the mean and SD per group.
For post-procedural blood pressure, informational videos and cartoons significantly reduced both systolic and diastolic pressure (62). During the procedure, no significant effects were observed for any interventions (58). For SpO2 (Oxygen Saturation), MDT approached significance post-procedure (86), but not during the procedure. Video with VR glasses showed no significant effects during/post-procedure (58). No intervention impacted plasma cortisol levels during the procedure (84) or respiratory frequency during/post-procedure (58).
Risk of bias assessment
The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB-2 tool for RCTs, through which 40% of studies were classified as low risk, 40% as having some concerns, and 20% as high risk (see Figure 2). The risk levels with respect to the five domains were as follows: (1) the randomization process showed low risk in 77.8% of studies, some concerns in 20%, and high risk in 2.2%; (2) for deviations from intended interventions, 57.8% were at low risk, 26.7% some concerns, and 15.6% were high risk; (3) regarding missing outcome data, 88.9% were low risk, 8.9% some concerns, and 2.2% were high risk; (4) in the measurement of the outcome domain, 64.4% were rated as low risk, 22.2% as some concerns, and 13.3% as high risk; (5) for the selection of the reported result, 73.3% were at low risk, 24.4% some concerns, and 2.2% were high risk.
Figure 2. Risk of bias assessment of randomized clinical trials in each domain of the RoB-2 tool.
Deviations from the intended intervention were the domain with the highest level of bias across the studies. This high level of bias was primarily due to the lack of or inability to blind participants and/or intervention providers to the assigned study group. Only a few studies attempted to minimize this bias by blinding outcome assessors (50, 73, 90) and/or by blinding data analysis (80). Additionally, a second major source of bias in this domain stemmed from the high variability in implementing social component interventions across both groups. For the experimental group, this was observed when clowns, CLS, and/or caregivers employed flexible distraction strategies, and for the control group, when usual distraction methods were left to the discretion of healthcare personnel and caregivers. The interactive and adaptive nature of non-standardized social interventions increased the risk of deviations from the intended protocol, as the child's response, caregiver involvement, and intervention provider's style could differ significantly from case to case, impacting intervention consistency. Although some studies attempted to reduce variability in implementation by assigning the same provider, this approach increased the risk of bias in outcomes due to the lack of blinding, highlighting the methodological challenge of balancing standardization and control in studies with psychological interventions.
Discussion
Main findings and comparative effectiveness
This systematic review and meta-analysis compiled and analyzed the evidence available about interventions aimed at reducing pain, fear, and distress in children undergoing IMPs in PEDs, as assessed using self- or observer report or biomarkers. The interventions were grouped according to the type of stimulus, including somato-sensory, screen and immersive reality, social interaction, active command and unisensory distractions. The meta-analysis revealed the potential of psychological and sensory interventions to reduce pain, fear, and distress during the procedure, as well as induce some significant reductions in post-procedure biological markers. However, not all interventions demonstrated the same effectiveness across all outcomes.
Based on the size SMD, somato-sensory (Buzzy or Vibration, Cold Spray), tactile toys (Musical Bracelet Toy, Rotating Tactile Toy), and screen-based interventions (Informational Video, Cartoons) were the most effective interventions and exhibited concordance between child-reported and observer-reported outcomes for both pain and fear. Informational videos were the most effective interventions for both self-reported and observer-reported pain and fear outcomes, followed by rotating tactile toys in second place, and somato-sensory interventions, such as buzzy and cold spray, in third place. Active Command strategies were effective in pain and fear the more active the child's participation was. Regarding social interventions, finger puppet stood out as the most effective intervention for reducing observed distress, while interaction with a robot was only significant for self-reported pain. However, parental distraction, interaction with clowns, and CLS support did not show any significant results across all outcomes. VR-based interventions showed large discrepancies between child-reported and observer-reported outcomes for pain and fear. Interventions like VR video games and the Ceiling-Mounted VR Screen were not significant for self-reported outcomes but were significant for observer-reported pain and fear. In contrast, VR Glasses significantly reduced self-reported, but not observer-reported fear.
The large effect sizes observed in some analyses, and the discrepancies between observer- and self-reported outcomes, should be interpreted in light of methodological and contextual factors specific to PEDs settings. Observer ratings are particularly sensitive to visible behavioral changes, which can yield substantial standardized differences even with modest clinical improvements. In contrast, children's self-reports were often obtained after partial emotional regulation, resulting in smaller SMDs. Moreover, the high emotional reactivity typical of PEDs contexts may amplify observable changes in distress behavior, producing apparently larger intervention effects. These contextual influences indicate that large SMDs likely reflect not only the clinical efficacy of psychosensory interventions but also setting-specific perceptual and methodological factors.
Mechanisms of psychosensory modulation
The findings of somato-sensory interventions in reducing pain and fear are align with previous research in primarily outpatient settings (92–95). Their effectiveness can be explained by the somatosensory activation of cutaneous nerve fibers that inhibit pain signals sent to the brain, Aβ fibers, which transmit sensations of touch, pressure, and vibration (Buzzy), and Aδ and C fibers, responsible for detecting stimuli related to pain and temperature (Cold Spray) (96, 97), facilitate an ascending modulation of pain (98). Concerning the difference in effect size between the two strategies on pain reduction (cold spray being more effective than Buzzy), recent evidence suggests that Cold Spray shows greater efficacy, as its inhibitory effect is more intense, rapid, and direct, whereas Buzzy modulates nociceptive signals without fully blocking them (99–102). Additionally, the combination of vibration with cold may cause both stimuli to compete for sensory attention, with the vibratory stimulus tending to dominate, diminishing the cold stimulus's effect and, thus, its efficacy in pain modulation (54, 103). On the other hand, the similar efficacy regarding fear levels can be understood from the conditioned inhibition perspective, where either intense acts as a safety signal, conditioning the child to associate the procedure with a less painful and threatening experience (104–106). However, our results also suggest informational videos and certain toys can be equally or more effective than somato-sensory, in the context of PEDs, which contrasts with outpatient settings where Buzzy consistently shows greater efficacy than other visual or auditory strategies (94). Specifically, the use of informational videos was the intervention with the greatest effect size in the meta-analysis. One key explanatory variable could be the influence of environmental stressors. A visit to an ED involves higher cognitive and emotional demands than outpatient care. These environmental stressors may act as amplifiers of fear experiences, increasing the relevance of a focus on modulating the cognitive and emotional pathways of pain (107). According to the cognitive and emotional pain modulation framework, pre-procedural education may act through cognitive restructuring of the experience, where information about what will happen (what, how, where, with whom) may help modulate the perception of threat and anticipatory emotional response (108–111). Taking into consideration that informational videos also show a child model successfully undergoing an IMP, their effectiveness can also be explained through vicarious learning processes, where a positive model can counteract fear acquired through negative experiences or previous negative models (112, 113).
Regarding the use of toys, three of them (Rotating Toy, Musical Bracelet, Kaleidoscope) were consistent with previous evidence in reducing pain and fear in outpatient settings (114–116). The fourth toy, MDT, did not reach statistical significance. This could be because, unlike the other three effective toys, which the child could touch or interact with during the procedure, the MDT could only be passively observed. From the perspective of pain neuroscience, tactile stimulus manipulation enhances the activation of descending pain modulation mechanisms through sensory and motor feedback (117–119), which may explain the differences in their effectiveness despite all being play objects.
Similarly, the effectiveness of active command or instruction strategies, where the child follows a guided action continuously during the procedure (e.g., squeezing a stress ball, blowing bubbles, palm stimulator and whistling), can be explained by both ascending and descending pain modulation. On the one hand, at the descending level the voluntary and repetitive nature of the action influences the activation of cognitive and emotional pain modulation areas. The types of actions themselves activate both sensory and autonomic systems. On the other hand, at the ascending level, similar to Buzzy and Cold Spray, the pressure of the stress ball and palm stimulator stimulates nerve fibers in the skin that can inhibit pain signals (120). Controlled breathing and bubble blowing activate sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, as a way of optimizing the modulation of psychophysiological pain responses (121–123).
The findings on the effectiveness of VR are consistent with mixed efficacy findings in predominantly outpatient settings (124–127). To gain a better insight into the heterogeneity observed in the effectiveness for VR interventions within meta-analysis, we consider four key variables that could explain the variation. Firstly, the age of the sample. During early to middle childhood, the proprioceptive and vestibular systems are still developing. Hence, VR interventions, which require high processing of both systems, increase the likelihood of discomfort with the device (128, 129), leading to variable efficacy of the experience on reducing pain, fear or distress. Particularly, studies involving infants and preschoolers showed more discomfort and a tendency to remove the device (78, 79). As half of the VR studies in the meta-analysis included early childhood participants, this could explain the lower efficacy outcomes across our meta-analysis. Secondly, environmental and illness-related stressors can impact the effectiveness of VR interventions. It has been documented that higher stress levels increase susceptibility to adverse VR effects (disorientation, dizziness, and nausea) (130). Both the stress of the ED environment and illness-related stress can limit participants' tolerance for VR, which varies widely among individuals, contributing to heterogeneous results across studies. Thirdly, the VR format and content varied widely amongst the included interventions. Among the 12 interventions using VR strategies, there were four presentation formats and 11 different content types. The level of cognitive and sensory load involved in each is key to its efficacy. The use of VR video games is considered the format with the highest cognitive demand due to the need for active interaction and real-time decision-making, which can affect children's ability to process and report their pain experience, leading to discrepancies in self-reported results (131–135). Lastly, the discrepancies between observed and self-perceived outcomes could have further added to the variation in effectiveness. Neuroscientific studies affirm that VR primarily influences visual and motor circuits, reducing behavioral pain expression, but to a lesser extent, it affects the anterior cingulate cortex and insula, which integrate the subjective dimension of pain (136). In high-cognitive-demand VR interventions, this could explain why observers perceive a behavioral change while participants may not experience a reduction in subjective pain. Conversely, low-cognitive-demand VR interventions may result in less behavioral pain expression but facilitate better subjective self-perception.
Social and developmental factors
The effectiveness of social interventions in managing pain and distress in children during medical procedures appeared to be largely dependent on the child's age and the type of interaction. Finger puppet interaction in preschoolers was significant in reducing observed distress, likely due to the playful and dynamic nature of the interaction, which uses both visual and tactile stimulation, facilitating the modulation of cognitive and emotional pain pathways (95). In older children (6–12 years), the efficacy of interaction with robots on self-perceived pain could be associated with stimulating cognitive and emotional neural circuits, favoring downward pain regulation, which has also been evidenced in previous literature (137–140). On the other hand, parental distraction and CLS support, which did not show any significant impact across any of the outcomes, were applied to a broader sample (ages 2–16). Age differences may be important, considering that during early childhood, children are more dependent on parental co-regulation, while individual intervention strategies become more effective from school age onwards. Furthermore, evidence suggests that social pain modulation requires active and quality strategies (141, 142). In the ED context, not all caregivers may be effective in providing distraction after brief training, and parental stress levels may reduce the quality of their intervention (143–145). Importantly, none of the studies observed the parental or CLS's behaviors during the intervention, which would allow checking how well they were adhering to intervention training instructions rather than engaging in more habitual behaviors. Regarding the above, both verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal elements of adult behavior have been suggested as influential variables to consider in the process of child co-regulation (146). Lastly, the exclusive effectiveness of clown therapy on self-reported fear levels could suggest that it primarily acts on cognitive or emotional pain pathways, rather than on nociceptive pain pathways (86, 147).
Physiological and biological markers
The impact of the intervention on biomarkers of stress levels were mixed and largely dependent on the specific biomarker assessed and the timing of assessment, with the most impact observed post-intervention for heart rate and blood pressure. Informational videos were highly effective in reducing post-procedural heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (62), which is consistent with literature highlighting the sustained calming effects of cognitive preparation provided by informational videos (148, 149). This reduction in heart rate supports the notion that these videos promote parasympathetic recovery by helping children feel more prepared and less anxious about the procedure. This finding is consistent with previous studies were cognitive distraction through videos or educational content effectively lowered anxiety and, consequently, physiological stress markers such as blood pressure (150). Conversely, VR glasses significantly increased heart rate post-procedure (58). These mixed findings align with previous discussions on how VR can potentially induce sensory overload, which activates the sympathetic nervous system and raises heart rate (151, 152). Interestingly, the MDT also significantly increased heart rate post-procedure (86), which could be explained by the toy's engaging and dynamic nature, which provides distraction while potentially also increasing arousal in children, leading to sympathetic activation. Other interventions such as Buzzy or vibration, listening to music, and VR during the procedure showed no significant changes in heart rate or blood pressure, suggesting that their effects might be insufficient to counteract the autonomic responses to stress during the procedure itself (58, 73).
Lastly, limited evidence was available for SpO₂, respiratory rate, and plasma cortisol, showing inconclusive results for oxygen saturation and no significant alterations in plasma cortisol or respiratory rate. This highlights the need for more investigations on these biomarkers. The absence of significant effects on respiratory frequency (58) aligns with previous studies, where interventions such as distraction or sensory modulation failed to significantly affect respiratory frequency, possibly due to the short duration of the procedure or the mild intensity of the intervention (73, 150). Similarly, the lack of impact on cortisol levels could reflect the complexity of stress hormone modulation during medical interventions. On one hand, cortisol, a marker of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis activation, may require more robust or prolonged interventions to produce significant changes, particularly in acute contexts such as medical procedures (144, 153). On the other hand, since the only study assessing cortisol levels used plasma samples, a method that may be less sensitive to subtle or transient stress responses compared with salivary or capillary cortisol, the absence of significant findings may also be due to methodological measurement factors.
Clinical implications for PEDs
This systematic review and meta-analysis provide guiding results for the implementation of psychological and sensory interventions in PEDs. The main clinical implications, mechanisms of action, and recommended applications for each intervention type are summarized in Table 4. Protocols for effectively managing pain, fear, and distress in pediatric emergencies should consider the use of: (a) preparatory strategies (such as informational videos) to facilitate an initial modulation of the cognitive evaluation of the upcoming experience; (b) somato-sensory devices during venipuncture to activate the ascending pain modulation pathways; and (c) complementary distraction strategies, whether through the stimulation of cognitive and/or emotional processes that promote descending pain modulation. When selecting descending pain modulation interventions, it is recommended to consider the child's cognitive and sensory processing capacity, as well as the cognitive load involved in the intervention.
Table 4. Summary of intervention, mechanisms and key clinical implications for PEDs.
In particular, the use of VR may overwhelm the vestibular and proprioceptive systems in infants and preschoolers. In these cases, simpler distraction strategies, such as screens, robots, or manipulable toys, are recommended. Further, at the preschooler age, sensory, emotional, and cognitive processes are dependent on adult behavior, highlighting the importance of involving caregivers with co-regulation strategies (154). Unfortunately, there is limited evidence regarding which specific co-regulation behaviors are effective in PED. For school-aged children, considering their still-developing systems, it is essential to make specific adjustments based on the level of interaction and type of VR content to ensure more effective pain and fear modulation (124, 127). In adolescents, there are less risk considerations related to their already developed sensory, vestibular, and proprioceptive systems (155). It is also important to allow adolescents to actively participate in choosing the intervention, as this promotes autonomy and a sense of control over their pain experience (156).
Methodological limitations and future research
Despite the robustness of the findings, this meta-analysis is not without limitations. First, the high levels of heterogeneity observed indicate significant variability in study designs, intervention implementation, and outcome measures. This variability limits the generalizability of the findings and underscores the need for more standardized methodologies for both intervention design and outcome assessment in future research. Secondly, only articles published in English or Spanish were included, which could reduce the generalizability of the findings. Thirdly, the effectiveness of interventions on pain, fear, and distress outcomes was assessed exclusively during the invasive medical procedure, which may limit the interpretation of effects across different procedural phases. Interventions that did not yield significant results during the procedure might show efficacy in pre-procedural preparation or in facilitating post-procedural stress recovery. Fourth, most of the included studies do not include individual variables (previous pain experiences, central sensitivity, catastrophizing, attentional bias to pain, etc.) which could impact children's stress and the effectiveness of the interventions (28, 31–35, 157). Should all be considered cross the board to adopt a personalized approach that adjusts the intervention based on the patient's needs (158, 159).
Fifth, it is noteworthy that most interventions included in this review were implemented by healthcare professionals, with only one study (82) directly focusing on parental behaviors as the main component of the intervention. Conversely, only one study (69) explicitly excluded caregiver presence from the intervention group, considering that such presence could act as a non-pharmacological method to reduce children's anxiety and, therefore, represent a potential source of bias. This distinction underscores the importance of differentiating between active caregiver variables (behaviors) and passive variables (presence or absence). In this context, caregiver presence or absence emerges as a relevant yet scarcely explored factor, whose independent contribution to children's stress modulation warrants further investigation. Given that the inclusion criteria of this review prioritized active psychological and sensory interventions, future research should aim to disentangle the individual and combined effects of active caregiver behaviors and passive presence to better understand their respective roles in children's adaptive responses during IMPs.
Sixth, achieving blinding in psycho-sensorial interventions presents inherent challenges. The active involvement of children, caregivers, and healthcare professionals is integral to most interventions, making it practically impossible to fully blind the intervention's nature (160). Participants are consciously aware of both the activities performed and the intended objectives, which may introduce demand biases and skew outcomes positively. Social interventions, in particular, present added variability in delivery due to their interactive and adaptive nature. Given the difficulty of ensuring full blinding and standardizing application in psychological interventions, alternative methods are crucial for enhancing methodological rigor. Emphasizing blinding of outcome evaluators (50, 73, 90) and data analysts (80) may offer a feasible approach. Partial blinding strategies could also be used, where participants, although aware they are receiving an intervention, are not informed of the exact study objectives and hypotheses. Additionally, they may be kept unaware of whether they are in a specific “experimental” or “control” group when more than one intervention group or a control condition with minimally effective psychological or sensory strategies is included. For social interventions, consistent training of providers, structured response protocols for varying interaction scenarios, and fidelity assessments during intervention delivery can improve consistency and minimize potential deviations.
Seventh, although some studies reported physiological or biological, these were treated as secondary complementary outcomes to the main emotional or behavioral measures. This approach aligns with the review's focus on children's pain, fear, and distress as the core responses to procedural stress. While limited in scope, this inclusion allowed for an initial approximation of the physiological dimension of procedural stress and its potential modulation by psychosensory interventions. However, the available data were highly heterogeneous across studies, making it necessary to interpret these results with caution. Future research could benefit from integrating standardized physiological and biochemical measures to provide a more comprehensive psychophysiological understanding of stress regulation in pediatric IMPs.
Finally, given the high heterogeneity observed (I2 > 90%), results should be interpreted with caution. A random-effects model was applied a priori to address variability in intervention formats and study designs. Although subgroup analyses were pre-planned, only the classification by psychosensory subtype was feasible due to insufficient stratified data. In addition, no sensitivity or meta-regression analyses were conducted, which limits the assessment of result stability and potential moderators. This decision aimed to preserve statistical power given the small number of studies per category. Moreover, the geographical concentration of studies—primarily conducted in Turkey, Canada, and the United States—may have contributed modestly to between-study variability and limits the generalizability of findings to other healthcare contexts. Future meta-analyses with larger, more geographically diverse, and methodologically homogeneous datasets should include sensitivity and meta-regression analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity and confirm the robustness of these findings.
Concluding remarks
In summary, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that a broad range of psychological and sensory interventions may reduce pain, fear, and distress during procedures in PED, as well as in some post-procedural biological markers. Pre-procedural preparation and procedural distraction appear to be key strategies for modulating these responses, addressing the sensory, cognitive, and emotional components of pediatric procedural pain. However, given the high heterogeneity among studies and the absence of meta-regression or sensitivity analyses, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Despite these limitations, the current evidence provides a preliminary useful foundation for developing clinical protocols aimed at optimizing the experience of children and adolescents in PED settings and minimizing long-term consequences, both psychological and somatosensory.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
MB: Conceptualization, Visualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation. LC: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology, Validation, Project administration. JR: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis. GD: Writing – original draft, Validation, Investigation, Data curation. GR: Writing – original draft, Data curation, Validation, Investigation. SC: Validation, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Investigation. NK: Validation, Writing – original draft, Data curation. SH: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft. VT: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft. MG: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft. KS: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Open access publication fees were supported by the University of Stirling.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to all the professionals, professors, and students in psychology and medicine who contributed to this work.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author LC declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. As the first author is a native Spanish speaker from Latin America, the manuscript was translated into English with the assistance of ChatGPT (OpenAI). The translated version was then thoroughly reviewed to ensure conceptual fidelity and linguistic adequacy.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2025.1654835/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Price J, Kassam-Adams N, Alderfer MA, Christofferson J, Kazak AE. Systematic review: a reevaluation and update of the integrative (trajectory) model of pediatric medical traumatic stress. J Pediatr Psychol. (2016) 41:86–97. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv074
2. Cozzi G, Cognigni M, Busatto R, Grigoletto V, Giangreco M, Conte M, et al. Adolescents’ pain and distress during peripheral intravenous cannulation in a paediatric emergency setting. Eur J Pediatr. (2022) 181:125–31. doi: 10.1007/s00431-021-04169-x
3. Hitchcock C, Goodall B, Wright IM, Boyle A, Johnston D, Dunning D, et al. The early course and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in very young children: diagnostic prevalence and predictors in hospital-attending children and a randomized controlled proof-of-concept trial of trauma-focused cognitive therapy for 3- to 8-year-olds. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2022) 63:58–67. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13460
4. Wingler D, Liston D, Joseph A, Wang Y, Feng H, Martin L. Perioperative anxiety in pediatric surgery: induction room vs. operating room. Paediatr Anaesth. (2021) 31:465–73. doi: 10.1111/pan.14098
5. Marcev I, Lannon-Boran C, Hyland P, McHugh Power J. The factors associated with paediatric medical post-traumatic stress: a systematic review. J Health Psychol. (2025) 30(11):2860–2880. doi: 10.1177/13591053241272214
6. Ratnapalan S, Cieslak P, Mizzi T, McEvoy J, Mounstephen W. Physicians’ perceptions of background noise in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2011) 27:826–33. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31822c1357
7. Joseph MM, Mahajan P, Snow SK, Ku BC, Saidinejad M, et al. Optimizing pediatric patient safety in the emergency care setting. Pediatrics. (2022) 150:e2022058158. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-059673
8. Haas R, Brundisini F, Barbara A, Darvesh N, Ritchie L, MacDougall D, et al. Emergency department overcrowding: an environmental scan of contributing factors and a summary of systematic review evidence on interventions. Can J Health Technol. (2023) 3(11). doi: 10.51731/cjht.2023.786
9. Gripko M, Joseph A, MohammadiGorji S. Effects of the physical environment on children and families in hospital-based emergency departments: a systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. (2023) 86:101970. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101970
10. Gross TK, Lane NE, Timm NL, Conners GP, Hoffmann J, Hsu B, et al. Crowding in the emergency department: challenges and recommendations for the care of children. Pediatrics. (2023) 151:e2022060603. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-060971
11. Ortiz MI, López-Zarco M, Arreola-Bautista EJ. Procedural pain and anxiety in pediatric patients in a Mexican emergency department. J Adv Nurs. (2012) 68:2700–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05969.x
12. Karlsson K, Englund ACD, Enskär K, et al. Parents’ perspectives on supporting children during needle-related medical procedures. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. (2014) 9:23759. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.23759
13. Ringer T, Moller D, Mutsaers A. Distress in caregivers accompanying patients to an emergency department: a scoping review. J Emerg Med. (2017) 53:493–508. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.03.028
14. Corrard F, Copin C, Wollner A, Elbez A, Derkx V, Bechet S, et al. Sickness behavior in feverish children is independent of the severity of fever: an observational, multicenter study. PLoS One. (2017) 12:e0171670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171670
15. Gates A, Shave K, Featherstone R, Buckreus K, Ali S, Scott SD, et al. Procedural pain: systematic review of parent experiences and information needs. Clin Pediatr. (2018) 57:672–88. doi: 10.1177/0009922817733694
16. Martín SR, Hung I, Heyming TW, Fortier MA, Kain ZN. Predictors of parental anxiety in a paediatric emergency department. Emerg Med J. (2023) 40:715–20. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2022-212917
17. Hellysaz A, Neijd M, Vesikari T, Svensson L, Hagbom M. Viral gastroenteritis: sickness symptoms and behavioral responses. mBio. (2023) 14:e0356722. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03567-22
18. Birnie KA, Noel M, Chambers CT, Uman LS, Parker JA. Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2020) 2020:CD005179. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005179.pub4
19. Svendsen EJ, Moen A, Pedersen R, Bjørk IT. Parent-healthcare provider interaction during peripheral vein cannulation with resistive preschool children. J Adv Nurs. (2016) 72:620–30. doi: 10.1111/jan.12852
20. Svendsen EJ, Moen A, Pedersen R, Bjørk IT. Resistive expressions in preschool children during peripheral vein cannulation in hospitals: a qualitative explorative observational study. BMC Pediatr. (2015) 15:190. doi: 10.1186/s12887-015-0508-3
21. Svendsen EJ, Bjørk IT. Healthcare providers’ responses to children’s resistance to peripheral vein cannulation: a qualitative observational study. J Clin Nurs. (2021) 30:1325–34. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15681
22. Mitchell M, Newall F, Williams K. Behavioural emergencies in a paediatric hospital environment. J Paediatr Child Health. (2022) 58:1033–8. doi: 10.1111/jpc.15896
23. Saidinejad M, Duffy S, Wallin D, Hoffmann JA, Joseph M, Schieferle Uhlenbrock J, et al. The management of children and youth with pediatric mental and behavioral health emergencies. Ann Emerg Med. (2023) 82:e97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.06.003
24. Shemesh E, Keshavarz R, Leichtling NK, Weinberg E, Mousavi A, Sadow K, et al. Pediatric emergency department assessment of psychological trauma and posttraumatic stress. Psychiatr Serv. (2003) 54:1277–81. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.54.9.1277
25. Pao M, Bosk A. Anxiety in medically ill children/adolescents. Depress Anxiety. (2011) 28:40–9. doi: 10.1002/da.20727
26. Simons LE. Fear of pain in children and adolescents with neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. (2016) 157:S90–7. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000377
27. Noel M, Rosenbloom B, Pavlova M, Campbell F, Isaac L, Pagé MG, et al. Remembering the pain of surgery 1 year later: a longitudinal examination of anxiety in children’s pain memory development. Pain. (2019) 160:1729–39. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001582
28. Hermann C, Hohmeister J, Demirakça S, Zohsel K, Flor H. Long-term alteration of pain sensitivity in school-aged children with early pain experiences. Pain. (2006) 125:278–85. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.026
29. Cevik MÖ. Habituation, sensitization, and pavlovian conditioning. Front Integr Neurosci. (2014) 8:13. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2014.00013
30. van den Hoogen NJ, Patijn J, Tibboel D, Joosten BA, Fitzgerald M, Kwok CHT. Repeated touch and needle-prick stimulation in the neonatal period increases the baseline mechanical sensitivity and postinjury hypersensitivity of adult spinal sensory neurons. Pain. (2018) 159:1166–75. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001201
31. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. (2011) 152:S2–15. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.030
32. Baron R, Hans G, Dickenson AH. Peripheral input and its importance for central sensitization. Ann Neurol. (2013) 74:630–6. doi: 10.1002/ana.24017
33. Pas R, Rheel E, Van Oosterwijck S, Leysen L, Van De Vijver E, Nijs J, et al. Endogenous pain modulation in children with functional abdominal pain disorders. Pain. (2019) 160:1883–90. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001566
34. Fan W, Sullivan SJ, Sdrulla AD. Dorsal column and root stimulation at Aβ-fiber intensity activate superficial dorsal horn glutamatergic and GABAergic populations. Mol Pain. (2022) 18:17448069221079559. doi: 10.1177/17448069221079559
35. Levy Gigi E, Rachmani M, Defrin R. The relationship between traumatic exposure and pain perception in children: the moderating role of posttraumatic symptoms. Pain. (2024) 165:2274–81. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003266
36. Cunico D, Rossi A, Verdesca M, Principi N, Esposito S. Pain management in children admitted to the emergency room: a narrative review. Pharmaceuticals. (2023) 16:1178. doi: 10.3390/ph16081178
37. Birnie KA, Noel M, Parker JA, Chambers CT, Uman LS, Kisely SR, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. (2014) 39:783–808. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsu029
38. Case-Smith J, Weaver LL, Fristad MA. A systematic review of sensory processing interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism. (2015) 19:133–48. doi: 10.1177/1362361313517762
39. Camarata S, Miller LJ, Wallace MT. Evaluating sensory integration/sensory processing treatment: issues and analysis. Front Integr Neurosci. (2020) 14:556660. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2020.556660
40. Ma D, Su J, Wang H, Zhao Y, Li H, Li Y, et al. Sensory-based approaches in psychiatric care: a systematic mixed-methods review. J Adv Nurs. (2021) 77:3991–4004. doi: 10.1111/jan.14884
41. Lane AE. Practitioner review: effective management of functional difficulties associated with sensory symptoms in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2020) 61:943–58. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13230
42. Wan Yunus F, Liu KP, Bissett M, Penkala S. Sensory-based intervention for children with behavioral problems: a systematic review. J Autism Dev Disord. (2015) 45:3565–79. doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2503-9
43. Flor H. Psychological pain interventions and neurophysiology: implications for a mechanism-based approach. Am Psychol. (2014) 69:188–96. doi: 10.1037/a0035254
44. Mahmood A, Hunt N, Masiewicz S, Cranford JA, Noel S, Brent C, et al. Treating prehospital pain in children: a retrospective chart review comparing the safety and efficacy of prehospital pediatric ketamine and opioid analgesia. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. (2023) 37:133–42. doi: 10.1080/15360288.2023.2169433
45. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. (2021) 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
46. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. the Cochrane Collaboration. London: The Cochrane Collaboration (2011). p. d5928. Available online at: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08
47. Baxter AL, Cohen LL, McElvery HL, Lawson ML, von Baeyer CL. An integration of vibration and cold relieves venipuncture pain in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2011) 27:1151–6. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e318237ace4
48. Çelik EG, Sönmez Düzkaya D. The impact of cold spray and ice application during intravenous access on pain and fear in children aged 7–15 years in the pediatric emergency unit: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Nurs. (2024) 50:264–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2023.11.012
49. Düzkaya DS, Karakul A, Akoy İ, Sönmez Düzkaya D, Andi S. Effects of ShotBlocker® and the Helfer skin tap technique on pain and fear experienced during intramuscular injection among children aged 6–12 years in pediatric emergency units: a randomized controlled trial. Int Emerg Nurs. (2024) 76:101502. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2024.101502
50. Farion KJ, Splinter KL, Newhook K, Gaboury I. The effect of vapocoolant spray on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children: a randomized controlled trial. Can Med Assoc J. (2008) 179:31–6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070874
51. Girgin BA, Aktaş E, Kılınç D, Aykanat Girgin B, Gözen D. Let’s prefer the pain reducing intervention, Buzzy or ShotBlocker: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2020) 51:75–83. doi: 10.5222/buchd.2020.13007
52. Haidar NA, Al Amri MH, Sendad NG, Toaimah FHS. Efficacy of Buzzy device versus EMLA cream for reducing pain during needle-related procedures in children: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2024) 40:180–6. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002965
53. Halal Mehdi Alfatavi H, Sadeghi T, Baqer Hassan Mohammed Al-Dakheel M, et al. Effects of whistling compared with Buzzy device during blood sampling on pain and fear in children’s emergency department. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs. (2022) 45:414–24. doi: 10.1080/24694193.2022.2091683
54. Semerci R, Akarsu Ö, Kılıç D. The effect of Buzzy and cold spray on pain, anxiety, and fear of children during venipuncture in pediatric emergency department in Turkey: a randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Nurs. (2023) 68:e1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2022.08.019
55. Sivri Bilgen B, Balcı S. The effect on pain of Buzzy® and ShotBlocker® during the administration of intramuscular injections to children: a randomized controlled trial. J Korean Acad Nurs. (2019) 49:486–94. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2019.49.4.486
56. Sivri BB, Balcı S, Dolgun G. The effect of 3 methods (Buzzy, ShotBlocker, and DistrACTION cards) used while taking blood samples from children with pain and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2023) 39:600–7. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002866
57. Uzsen H, Tural Buyuk E, Odabasoglu E, Koyun M. The effects of vibration and pressure interventions on children’s pain, fear, and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 75:196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.12.022
58. Yıldırım BG, Gerçeker GÖ. The effect of virtual reality and Buzzy on first insertion success, procedure-related fear, anxiety, and pain in children during intravenous insertion in the pediatric emergency unit: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Nurs. (2023) 49:62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2022.09.018
59. Yilmaz G, Alemdar DK. Using Buzzy, ShotBlocker, and bubble blowing in a pediatric emergency department to reduce the pain and fear caused by intramuscular injection: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Nurs. (2019) 45:502–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2019.04.003
60. Zengin M, Yayan EH. A comparison of two different tactile stimulus methods on reducing pain of children during intramuscular injection: a randomized controlled study. J Emerg Nurs. (2022) 48:167–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2021.10.006
61. Daihimfar F, Babamohamadi H, Ghorbani R. A comparison of the effects of acupressure and music on venipuncture pain intensity in children: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Pain Res Manag. (2024) 2024:2504732. doi: 10.1155/2024/2504732
62. Düzkaya DS, Bozkurt G, Ulupınar S, Uysal G, Uçar S, Uysalol M. The effect of a cartoon and an information video about intravenous insertion on pain and fear in children aged 6 to 12 years in the pediatric emergency unit: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Nurs. (2021) 47:76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2020.04.011
63. Lee HN, Park JW, Hwang S, Jung JY, Kim DK, Kwak YH. Effect of a virtual reality environment using a domed ceiling screen on procedural pain during intravenous placement in young children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. (2023) 177:25–31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4426
64. Miller K, Tan X, Hobson AD, Khan A, Ziviani J, O'Brien E, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of nonpharmacological pain management during intravenous cannulation in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2016) 32:444–51. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000000778
65. Akarsu Ö, Semerci R, Kılınç D. The effect of two different distraction methods on pain, fear, and anxiety levels during venous blood draw in children in a pediatric emergency unit: a randomized controlled study. J Nurs Care Qual. (2023) 38:E51–8. doi: 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000709
66. Ali S, Ma K, Dow N, Vandermeer B, Scott S, Beran T, et al. A randomized trial of iPad distraction to reduce children’s pain and distress during intravenous cannulation in the paediatric emergency department. Paediatr Child Health. (2021) 26:287–93. doi: 10.1093/pch/pxaa089
67. Downey LV, Zun LS. The impact of watching cartoons for distraction during painful procedures in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2012) 28:1033–5. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31826cac1a
68. Dumoulin S, Bouchard S, Ellis J, Lavoie KL, Vézina M-P, Charbonneau P, et al. A randomized controlled trial on the use of virtual reality for needle-related procedures in children and adolescents in the emergency department. Games Health J. (2019) 8:285–93. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2018.0111
69. Míguez-Navarro C. Video distraction system to reduce anxiety and pain in children subjected to venipuncture in pediatric emergencies. Pediatr Emerg Care Med. (2016) 1(1):1–4.
70. van der Heijden MJE, Mevius H, van der Heijde N, van Rosmalen J, van As S, van Dijk M. Children listening to music or watching cartoons during ER procedures: a RCT. J Pediatr Psychol. (2019) 44:1151–62. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsz066
71. Arıkan A, Esenay FI. Active and passive distraction interventions in a pediatric emergency department to reduce the pain and anxiety during venous blood sampling: a randomized clinical trial. J Emerg Nurs. (2020) 46:779–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2020.05.004
72. Goktas N, Avci D. The effect of visual and/or auditory distraction techniques on children’s pain, anxiety and medical fear in invasive procedures: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2023) 73:e27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.07.005
73. Hartling L, Newton AS, Liang Y, Jou H, Hewson K, Klassen TP, et al. Music to reduce pain and distress in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. (2013) 167:826–35. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.200
74. Can M, Özalp Gerçeker G. The effect of the veinlite PEDI2 and passive virtual reality distraction on peripheral catheter insertion-related emotional behavior, pain, fear, and anxiety of children: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 78:e227–35. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.07.010
75. Chan E, Hovenden M, Ramage E, Ling N, Pham JH, Rahim A, et al. Virtual reality for pediatric needle procedural pain: two randomized clinical trials. J Pediatr. (2019) 209:160–7.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.02.034
76. Chen YJ, Cheng SF, Lee PC, Lai C, Hou I. Distraction using virtual reality for children during intravenous injections in an emergency department: a randomised trial. J Clin Nurs. (2020) 29:503–10. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15088
77. Goldman RD, Behboudi A. Virtual reality for intravenous placement in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. (2021) 180:725–31. doi: 10.1007/s00431-020-03771-9
78. Osmanlliu E, Trottier ED, Bailey B, Lagacé M, Certain M, Khadra C, et al. Distraction in the emergency department using virtual reality for intravenous procedures in children to improve comfort (DEVINCI): a pilot pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Can J Emerg Med. (2021) 23:94–102. doi: 10.1007/s43678-020-00006-6
79. Schlechter AK, Whitaker W, Iyer S, Gabriele G, Wilkinson M. Virtual reality distraction during pediatric intravenous line placement in the emergency department: a prospective randomized comparison study. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 44:296–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.009
80. Oluc N, Tas Arslan F. The effect of two different methods on reducing the pain and fear during phlebotomy in children: a randomized controlled trial. Int Emerg Nurs. (2024) 72:101386. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101386
81. Ali S, Manaloor R, Ma K, Sivakumar M, Beran T, Scott SD, et al. A randomized trial of robot-based distraction to reduce children’s distress and pain during intravenous insertion in the emergency department. Can J Emerg Med. (2021) 23:85–93. doi: 10.1007/s43678-020-00023-5
82. Cavender K, Goff MD, Hollon EC, Guzzetta CE. Parents’ positioning and distracting children during venipuncture: effects on children’s pain, fear, and distress. J Holist Nurs. (2004) 22:32–56. doi: 10.1177/0898010104263306
83. Felluga M, Rabach I, Minute M, Montico M, Giorgi R, Lonciari I, et al. A quasi randomized-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of clown therapy on children’s anxiety and pain levels in emergency department. Eur J Pediatr. (2016) 175:645–50. doi: 10.1007/s00431-015-2688-0
84. Rimon A, Shalom S, Wolyniez I, Gruber A, Schachter-Davidov A, Glatstein M. Medical clowns and cortisol levels in children undergoing venipuncture in the emergency department: a pilot study. Isr Med Assoc J. (2016) 18(11):680–3.28466619
85. Wolyniez I, Rimon A, Scolnik D, Gruber A, Tavor O, Haviv E, et al. The effect of a medical clown on pain during intravenous access in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized prospective pilot study. Clin Pediatr. (2013) 52:1168–72. doi: 10.1177/0009922813502257
86. Karaca TN, Cevik Guner U. The effect of music-moving toys to reduce fear and anxiety in preschool children undergoing intravenous insertion in a pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. J Emerg Nurs. (2022) 48:32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2021.10.004
87. Lilik Lestari MP, Wanda D, Hayati H. The effectiveness of distraction (cartoon-patterned clothes and bubble-blowing) on pain and anxiety in preschool children during venipuncture in the emergency department. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs. (2017) 40:22–8. doi: 10.1080/24694193.2017.1386967
88. Şen T, Çetinkaya B. The effect of virtual reality glasses used during intravenous catheter application on the child’s emotional responses. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 77:e251–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.04.036
89. Ceylan M, Erkut Z. The effect of finger puppet on pain and emotional manifestation for venous blood collection in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Int Emerg Nurs. (2023) 70:101348. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101348
90. Stevenson MD, Bivins CM, O’Brien K, O'Brien K, Gonzalez del Rey JA. Child life intervention during angiocatheter insertion in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2005) 21:712–8. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000186423.84764.5a
91. Bourdier S, Khelif N, Velasquez M, Usclade A, Rochette E, Pereira B, et al. Cold vibration (Buzzy) versus anesthetic patch (EMLA) for pain prevention during cannulation in children: a randomized trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2021) 37:86–91. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001867
92. Bergomi P, Scudeller L, Pintaldi S, Dal Molin A. Efficacy of non-pharmacological methods of pain management in children undergoing venipuncture in a pediatric outpatient clinic: a randomized controlled trial of audiovisual distraction and external cold and vibration. J Pediatr Nurs. (2018) 42:e66–72. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2018.04.011
93. Ballard A, Khadra C, Adler S, Trottier ED, Le May S. Efficacy of the Buzzy device for pain management during needle-related procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. (2019) 35:532–43. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000690
94. Jin F, Wang X, Qi M, Zhang W, Zhang Y. Effectiveness and safety of Buzzy device in needle-related procedures for children under twelve years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. (2024) 103:e37522. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037522
95. Yaz ŞB, Başdemir S, Geçtan E. The effect of vibrating cold application and puppet use on pain and fear during phlebotomy in children: a randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 74:77–84. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.11.018
96. Schmelz M. Neuronal sensitivity of the skiN.Eur J Dermatol. (2011) 2:43–7. doi: 10.1684/ejd.2011.1265
97. Sonza A, Sanada LS, Oliveira LR, Bernardo-Filho M, Sá-Caputo DC, Zaro MA, et al. Whole-body vibration mediates mechanical hypersensitivity through aβ-fiber and C-fiber thermal sensation in a chronic pain model. Exp Biol Med. (2021) 246:1210–8. doi: 10.1177/1535370221991147
98. Tobaldini G, Sardi NF, Guilhen VA, Fischer L. Pain inhibits pain: an ascending-descending pain modulation pathway linking mesolimbic and classical descending mechanisms. Mol Neurobiol. (2019) 56:1000–13. doi: 10.1007/s12035-018-1116-7
99. Defrin R, Sheraizin A, Malichi L, Shachen O. Spatial summation and spatial discrimination of cold pain: effect of spatial configuration and skin type. Pain. (2011) 152:2739–45. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.08.017
100. Selvi F, Bedel C, Akçimen M. Evaluation of vapocoolant spray effect on pain reduction during digital nerve block: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 50:260–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.08.001
101. Shimo K, Ogawa S, Niwa Y, Tokiwa Y, Dokita A, Kato S, et al. Inhibition of current perception thresholds in A-delta and C fibers through somatosensory stimulation of the body surface. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:13705. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18016-y
102. Pakalniskis J, Soares S, Rajan S, Vyshnevska A, Schmelz M, Solinski HJ, et al. Human pain ratings to electrical sinusoids increase with cooling through a cold-induced increase in C-fibre excitability. Pain. (2023) 164:1524–36. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002849
103. Hollins M, McDermott K, Harper D. How does vibration reduce pain? Perception. (2014) 43:70–84. doi: 10.1068/p7637
104. Wood KH, Ver Hoef LW, Knight DC. Neural mechanisms underlying the conditioned diminution of the unconditioned fear response. Neuroimage. (2012) 60:787–99. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.048
105. Odriozola P, Gee DG. Learning about safety: conditioned inhibition as a novel approach to fear reduction targeting the developing brain. Am J Psychiatry. (2021) 178:136–55. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20020232
106. Laing PAF, Vervliet B, Dunsmoor JE, Harrison BJ. Pavlovian safety learning: an integrative theoretical review. Psychon Bull Rev. (2025) 32:176–202. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02559-4
107. Bushnell MC, Čeko M, Low LA. Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2013) 14:502–11. doi: 10.1038/nrn3516
108. Hodgins MJ, Lander J. Children’s coping with venipuncture. J Pain Symptom Manage. (1997) 13:274–85. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(96)00328-4
109. Wang Y, Jackson T, Cai L. Causal effects of threat and challenge appraisals on coping and pain perceptioN.Eur J Pain. (2016) 20:1111–20. doi: 10.1002/ejp.835
110. Jamieson JP, Hangen EJ, Lee HY, Yeager DS. Capitalizing on appraisal processes to improve affective responses to social stress. Emot Rev. (2018) 10:30–9. doi: 10.1177/1754073917693085
111. Wiech K, Ploner M, Tracey I. Neurocognitive aspects of pain perception. Trends Cogn Sci. (2008) 12:306–13. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.005
112. Askew C, Field AP. Vicarious learning and the development of fears in childhood. Behav Res Ther. (2007) 45:2616–27. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2007.06.008
113. Krause L, Askew C. Preventing and reducing fear using positive modelling: a systematic review of experimental research with children. Behav Res Ther. (2022) 148:103992. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2021.103992
114. Turgut MA, Türkmen AS. The effect of lighted toy on reducing pain and fear during blood collection in children between 3 and 6 years: a randomized control trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2023) 70:111–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.02.009
115. Koç S, Küçük Alemdar D. Effect of a musical toy used during peripheral venous access on children’s pain, fear and parental satisfaction: randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 77:e573–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.05.024
116. Taspinar F, Turkmen AS. The impact of kaleidoscope on children’s pain and fear during sutures. Int Emerg Nurs. (2024) 77:101521. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2024.101521
117. Mancini F, Beaumont A-L, Hu L, Haggard P, Iannetti GDD. Touch inhibits subcortical and cortical nociceptive responses. Pain. (2015) 156:1936–44. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000253
118. Zhao K, Tang Z, Wang H, Guo Y, Peng W, Hu L. Analgesia induced by self-initiated electrotactile sensation is mediated by top-down modulations. Psychophysiology. (2017) 54:848–56. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12839
119. Bannister K, Dickenson AH. The plasticity of descending controls in pain: translational probing. J Physiol. (2017) 595:4159–66. doi: 10.1113/JP274165
120. Blanc C, Buisson J-C, Kruck J, Kostrubiec V. Haptic coordination: squeezing a vibrating stress ball decreases anxiety and arousal. Hum Mov Sci. (2024) 96:103220. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2024.103220
121. Fincham GW, Strauss C, Montero-Marin J, Cavanagh K. Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: a meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:432. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27247-y
122. Chin MS, Kales SN. Is there an optimal autonomic state for enhanced flow and executive task performance? Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1716. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01716
123. Buchanan TL, Janelle CM. Emotions and ensuing motor performance are altered by regulating breathing frequency: implications for emotion regulation and sport performance. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:963711. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.963711
124. Merino-Lobato C, Rodríguez-Gallego I, Pabón-Carrasco M, Romero-Castillo R, Jiménez-Picón N. Virtual reality vs. Buzzy®. efficacy in pain and anxiety management during pediatric venipuncture. Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Nurs. (2023) 73:22–33. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.08.014
125. Guillari A, Giordano V, Catone M, Gallucci M, Rea T. Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce procedural needle pain in children (6-12 years): a systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 78:e102–16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.06.025
126. Hu Z, Yao J, He L, Guo Y. The impact of virtual reality exposure on anxiety and pain levels in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 78:e364–74. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.07.027
127. Savaş EH, Demir AS, Semerci R, Karadağ A. Effect of virtual reality on pain during burn dressing in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Pediatr Nurs. (2023) 73:e364–71. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.10.002
128. Tychsen L, Foeller P. Effects of immersive virtual reality headset viewing on young children: visuomotor function, postural stability, and motion sickness. Am J Ophthalmol. (2020) 209:151–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.020
129. Valori I, McKenna-Plumley PE, Bayramova R, Zandonella Callegher C, Altoè G, Farroni T. Proprioceptive accuracy in immersive virtual reality: a developmental perspective. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0222253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222253
130. Nalivaiko E, Davis SL, Blackmore KL, Vakulin A, Nesbitt KV. Cybersickness provoked by head-mounted display affects cutaneous vascular tone, heart rate and reaction time. Physiol Behav. (2015) 151:583–90. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.08.043
131. Hoffman HG. Interacting with virtual objects via embodied avatar hands reduces pain intensity and diverts attention. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:10672. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89526-4
132. Li J, Yang H, Xiao Y, Liu X. The analgesic effects and neural oscillatory mechanisms of virtual reality scenes based on distraction and mindfulness strategies in human volunteers. Br J Anaesth. (2023) 131:1082–92. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.09.001
133. Lobel A, Granic I, Stone LL, Engels RCME. Associations between children’s video game playing and psychosocial health: information from both parent and child reports. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. (2014) 17:639–43. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0128
134. Verhoef REJ, van Dijk A, Verhulp EE, de Castro BO. Interactive virtual reality assessment of aggressive social information processing in boys with behaviour problems: a pilot study. Clin Psychol Psychother. (2021) 28:489–99. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2620
135. da Silva Soares R Jr, Ramirez-Chavez KL, Tufanoglu A, Barreto C, Sato JR, Ayaz H. Cognitive effort during visuospatial problem solving in physical real world, on computer screen, and in virtual reality. Sensors. (2024) 24:977. doi: 10.3390/s24030977
136. Mehesz E, Karoui H, Strutton PH, Hughes SW. Exposure to an immersive virtual reality environment can modulate perceptual correlates of endogenous analgesia and central sensitization in healthy volunteers. J Pain. (2021) 22:707–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2020.12.007
137. Rossi S, Santini SJ, Di Genova D, Maggi G, Verrotti A, Farello G, et al. Using the social robot NAO for emotional support to children at a pediatric emergency department: randomized clinical trial. J Med Internet Res. (2022) 24:e29656. doi: 10.2196/29656
138. Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Vanderkooi OG, Kuhn S. Reducing children’s pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine. (2013) 31:2772–7. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056
139. Okita SY. Self-other’s perspective taking: the use of therapeutic robot companions as social agents for reducing pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. (2013) 16:436–41. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0513
140. Lee-Krueger RCW, Pearson JR, Spencer A, Noel M, Bell-Graham L, Beran TN. Children’s pain during IV induction: a randomized-controlled trial with the MEDi® robot. J Pediatr Psychol. (2021) 46:991–1000. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsab028
141. Che X, Cash R, Chung S, Fitzgerald PB, Fitzgibbon BM. Investigating the influence of social support on experimental pain and related physiological arousal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2018) 92:437–52. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.005
142. Roberts MH, Klatzkin RR, Mechlin B. Social support attenuates physiological stress responses and experimental pain sensitivity to cold pressor pain. Ann Behav Med. (2015) 49:557–69. doi: 10.1007/s12160-015-9686-3
143. McCarthy AM, Kleiber C, Hanrahan K, Zimmerman MB, Westhus N, Allen S. Impact of parent-provided distraction on child responses to an IV insertion. Child Health Care. (2010) 39:125–41. doi: 10.1080/02739611003679915
144. McCarthy AM, Kleiber C, Hanrahan K, Zimmerman MB, Ersig A, Westhus N, et al. Matching doses of distraction with child risk for distress during a medical procedure: a randomized clinical trial: a randomized clinical trial. Nurs Res. (2014) 63:397–407. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000056
145. Newell A, Keane J, McGuire BE, Heary C, McDarby V, Dudley B, et al. Interactive versus passive distraction and parent psychoeducation as pain management techniques during pediatric venepuncture: a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. (2018) 34:1008–16. doi: 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000628
146. McMurtry MC, Chambers CT, McGrath PJ, Asp E. When “don’t worry” communicates fear: children’s perceptions of parental reassurance and distraction during a painful medical procedure. Pain. (2010) 150:52–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.02.021
147. Meiri N, Ankri A, Hamad-Saied M, Konopnicki M, Pillar G. The effect of medical clowning on reducing pain, crying, and anxiety in children aged 2-10 years old undergoing venous blood drawing–a randomized controlled study. Eur J Pediatr. (2016) 175:373–9. doi: 10.1007/s00431-015-2652-z
148. Doering S, Katzlberger F, Rumpold G, Roessler S, Hofstoetter B, Schatz DS, et al. Videotape preparation of patients before hip replacement surgery reduces stress. Psychosom Med. (2000) 62:365–73. doi: 10.1097/00006842-200005000-00010
149. Liu Y, Chen J, Pan Y, Cai Y, Ge C, Chu H, et al. The effects of video based nursing education on perioperative anxiety and depression in patients with gastric cancer. Psychol Health Med. (2021) 26:867–76. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2020.1825756
150. Sogabe M, Okahisa T, Fukuya A, Kagemoto K, Okada Y, Adachi Y, et al. Effects of audio and visual distraction on patients’ vital signs and tolerance during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. (2020) 20:122. doi: 10.1186/s12876-020-01274-3
151. Gao Y, Wang N, Liu N.Effectiveness of virtual reality in reducing preoperative anxiety in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. (2023) 79:3678–90. doi: 10.1111/jan.15743
152. Qin Z, Zhou C, Zhu Y, Wang Y, Cao H, Huang Z. Virtual reality for hypertension in tooth extraction: a randomized trial. J Dent Res. (2022) 101:400–6. doi: 10.1177/00220345211049393
153. Rogerson O, Wilding S, Prudenzi A, O’Connor DB. Effectiveness of stress management interventions to change cortisol levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2024) 159:106415. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106415
154. Lunoe MM, Bolin AE, Drendel AL. An evaluation of high preprocedural anxiety and venipuncture pain experienced by young children. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2021) 37:e621–4. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002424
155. Blankenburg M, Boekens H, Hechler T, Maier C, Krumova E, Scherens A, et al. Reference values for quantitative sensory testing in children and adolescents: developmental and gender differences of somatosensory perception. Pain. (2010) 149:76–88. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.01.011
156. Riggenbach A, Amouroux R, Van Petegem S, Tourniaire B, Tonelli A, Wiener S, et al. Autonomy and competence satisfaction as resources for facing chronic pain disability in adolescence: a self-determination perspective: original article. Psychol Health Med. (2021) 26:322–32. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2020.1813900
157. Vervoort T, Trost Z, Van Ryckeghem DML. Children’s selective attention to pain and avoidance behaviour: the role of child and parental catastrophizing about pain. Pain. (2013) 154(10):1979–88. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.052
158. Richardson PA, Birnie KA, Harrison LE, Rajagopalan A, Bhandari RP. Profiling modifiable psychosocial factors among children with chronic pain: a person-centered methodology. J Pain. (2020) 21(3–4):467–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.08.015
159. McCracken LM. Personalized pain management: is it time for process-based therapy for particular people with chronic pain? Eur J Pain. (2023) 27(9):1044–55. doi: 10.1002/ejp.2091
Keywords: pediatric emergency department, pediatric pain, fear, distress, psychosensory interventions, meta-analysis, RCT (randomised controlled trial)
Citation: Bustamante Fernández M, Caes L, Rossel JI, Díaz Díaz G, Ruiz Valenzuela G, Caroca Madariaga S, Klein Vallecillo N, Hidalgo Vilche S, Tapia Espinoza V, González Zamarin M and Strasser K (2026) Efficacy of psychosensory interventions for the management of pediatric pain, fear, and distress during emergency care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Front. Pediatr. 13:1654835. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1654835
Received: 27 June 2025; Revised: 24 November 2025;
Accepted: 28 November 2025;
Published: 7 January 2026.
Edited by:
Marcos Brioschi, University of São Paulo, BrazilReviewed by:
Kazuto Suda, Juntendo University, JapanNasrin Dadashi, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Mehrdad Ghamari, Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom
Copyright: © 2026 Bustamante Fernández, Caes, Rossel, Díaz Díaz, Ruiz Valenzuela, Caroca Madariaga, Klein Vallecillo, Hidalgo Vilche, Tapia Espinoza, González Zamarin and Strasser. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mariela Bustamante Fernández, bWFyaWVsYS5idXN0YW1hbnRlQHVnLnVjaGlsZS5jbA==