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

Abstract

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

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).

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).

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

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.

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.

References

• 1.

  PriceJKassam-AdamsNAlderferMAChristoffersonJKazakAE. Systematic review: a reevaluation and update of the integrative (trajectory) model of pediatric medical traumatic stress. J Pediatr Psychol. (2016) 41:86–97. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv074

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2.

  CozziGCognigniMBusattoRGrigolettoVGiangrecoMConteMet alAdolescents’ pain and distress during peripheral intravenous cannulation in a paediatric emergency setting. Eur J Pediatr. (2022) 181:125–31. 10.1007/s00431-021-04169-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3.

  HitchcockCGoodallBWrightIMBoyleAJohnstonDDunningDet alThe 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. 10.1111/jcpp.13460

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4.

  WinglerDListonDJosephAWangYFengHMartinL. Perioperative anxiety in pediatric surgery: induction room vs. operating room. Paediatr Anaesth. (2021) 31:465–73. 10.1111/pan.14098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5.

  MarcevILannon-BoranCHylandPMcHugh PowerJ. The factors associated with paediatric medical post-traumatic stress: a systematic review. J Health Psychol. (2025) 30(11):2860–2880. 10.1177/13591053241272214

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6.

  RatnapalanSCieslakPMizziTMcEvoyJMounstephenW. Physicians’ perceptions of background noise in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2011) 27:826–33. 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31822c1357

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7.

  JosephMMMahajanPSnowSKKuBCSaidinejadMet alOptimizing pediatric patient safety in the emergency care setting. Pediatrics. (2022) 150:e2022058158. 10.1542/peds.2022-059673

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8.

  HaasRBrundisiniFBarbaraADarveshNRitchieLMacDougallDet alEmergency department overcrowding: an environmental scan of contributing factors and a summary of systematic review evidence on interventions. Can J Health Technol. (2023) 3(11). 10.51731/cjht.2023.786

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9.

  GripkoMJosephAMohammadiGorjiS. Effects of the physical environment on children and families in hospital-based emergency departments: a systematic literature review. J Environ Psychol. (2023) 86:101970. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101970

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10.

  GrossTKLaneNETimmNLConnersGPHoffmannJHsuBet alCrowding in the emergency department: challenges and recommendations for the care of children. Pediatrics. (2023) 151:e2022060603. 10.1542/peds.2022-060971

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11.

  OrtizMILópez-ZarcoMArreola-BautistaEJ. Procedural pain and anxiety in pediatric patients in a Mexican emergency department. J Adv Nurs. (2012) 68:2700–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05969.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12.

  KarlssonKEnglundACDEnskärKet alParents’ perspectives on supporting children during needle-related medical procedures. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. (2014) 9:23759. 10.3402/qhw.v9.23759

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13.

  RingerTMollerDMutsaersA. Distress in caregivers accompanying patients to an emergency department: a scoping review. J Emerg Med. (2017) 53:493–508. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.03.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14.

  CorrardFCopinCWollnerAElbezADerkxVBechetSet alSickness behavior in feverish children is independent of the severity of fever: an observational, multicenter study. PLoS One. (2017) 12:e0171670. 10.1371/journal.pone.0171670

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15.

  GatesAShaveKFeatherstoneRBuckreusKAliSScottSDet alProcedural pain: systematic review of parent experiences and information needs. Clin Pediatr. (2018) 57:672–88. 10.1177/0009922817733694

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16.

  MartínSRHungIHeymingTWFortierMAKainZN. Predictors of parental anxiety in a paediatric emergency department. Emerg Med J. (2023) 40:715–20. 10.1136/emermed-2022-212917

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17.

  HellysazANeijdMVesikariTSvenssonLHagbomM. Viral gastroenteritis: sickness symptoms and behavioral responses. mBio. (2023) 14:e0356722. 10.1128/mbio.03567-22

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18.

  BirnieKANoelMChambersCTUmanLSParkerJA. Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2020) 2020:CD005179. 10.1002/14651858.CD005179.pub4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19.

  SvendsenEJMoenAPedersenRBjørkIT. Parent-healthcare provider interaction during peripheral vein cannulation with resistive preschool children. J Adv Nurs. (2016) 72:620–30. 10.1111/jan.12852

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20.

  SvendsenEJMoenAPedersenRBjørkIT. Resistive expressions in preschool children during peripheral vein cannulation in hospitals: a qualitative explorative observational study. BMC Pediatr. (2015) 15:190. 10.1186/s12887-015-0508-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21.

  SvendsenEJBjørkIT. Healthcare providers’ responses to children’s resistance to peripheral vein cannulation: a qualitative observational study. J Clin Nurs. (2021) 30:1325–34. 10.1111/jocn.15681

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22.

  MitchellMNewallFWilliamsK. Behavioural emergencies in a paediatric hospital environment. J Paediatr Child Health. (2022) 58:1033–8. 10.1111/jpc.15896

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23.

  SaidinejadMDuffySWallinDHoffmannJAJosephMSchieferle UhlenbrockJet alThe management of children and youth with pediatric mental and behavioral health emergencies. Ann Emerg Med. (2023) 82:e97–105. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.06.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24.

  ShemeshEKeshavarzRLeichtlingNKWeinbergEMousaviASadowKet alPediatric emergency department assessment of psychological trauma and posttraumatic stress. Psychiatr Serv. (2003) 54:1277–81. 10.1176/appi.ps.54.9.1277

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25.

  PaoMBoskA. Anxiety in medically ill children/adolescents. Depress Anxiety. (2011) 28:40–9. 10.1002/da.20727

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26.

  SimonsLE. Fear of pain in children and adolescents with neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. (2016) 157:S90–7. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000377

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27.

  NoelMRosenbloomBPavlovaMCampbellFIsaacLPagéMGet alRemembering the pain of surgery 1 year later: a longitudinal examination of anxiety in children’s pain memory development. Pain. (2019) 160:1729–39. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001582

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28.

  HermannCHohmeisterJDemirakçaSZohselKFlorH. Long-term alteration of pain sensitivity in school-aged children with early pain experiences. Pain. (2006) 125:278–85. 10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29.

  CevikMÖ. Habituation, sensitization, and pavlovian conditioning. Front Integr Neurosci. (2014) 8:13. 10.3389/fnint.2014.00013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30.

  van den HoogenNJPatijnJTibboelDJoostenBAFitzgeraldMKwokCHT. 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. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001201

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31.

  WoolfCJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. (2011) 152:S2–15. 10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32.

  BaronRHansGDickensonAH. Peripheral input and its importance for central sensitization. Ann Neurol. (2013) 74:630–6. 10.1002/ana.24017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33.

  PasRRheelEVan OosterwijckSLeysenLVan De VijverENijsJet alEndogenous pain modulation in children with functional abdominal pain disorders. Pain. (2019) 160:1883–90. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001566

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34.

  FanWSullivanSJSdrullaAD. Dorsal column and root stimulation at Aβ-fiber intensity activate superficial dorsal horn glutamatergic and GABAergic populations. Mol Pain. (2022) 18:17448069221079559. 10.1177/17448069221079559

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35.

  Levy GigiERachmaniMDefrinR. The relationship between traumatic exposure and pain perception in children: the moderating role of posttraumatic symptoms. Pain. (2024) 165:2274–81. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003266

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36.

  CunicoDRossiAVerdescaMPrincipiNEspositoS. Pain management in children admitted to the emergency room: a narrative review. Pharmaceuticals. (2023) 16:1178. 10.3390/ph16081178

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37.

  BirnieKANoelMParkerJAChambersCTUmanLSKiselySRet alSystematic 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. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsu029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38.

  Case-SmithJWeaverLLFristadMA. A systematic review of sensory processing interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism. (2015) 19:133–48. 10.1177/1362361313517762

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39.

  CamarataSMillerLJWallaceMT. Evaluating sensory integration/sensory processing treatment: issues and analysis. Front Integr Neurosci. (2020) 14:556660. 10.3389/fnint.2020.556660

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40.

  MaDSuJWangHZhaoYLiHLiYet alSensory-based approaches in psychiatric care: a systematic mixed-methods review. J Adv Nurs. (2021) 77:3991–4004. 10.1111/jan.14884

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41.

  LaneAE. Practitioner review: effective management of functional difficulties associated with sensory symptoms in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2020) 61:943–58. 10.1111/jcpp.13230

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42.

  Wan YunusFLiuKPBissettMPenkalaS. Sensory-based intervention for children with behavioral problems: a systematic review. J Autism Dev Disord. (2015) 45:3565–79. 10.1007/s10803-015-2503-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43.

  FlorH. Psychological pain interventions and neurophysiology: implications for a mechanism-based approach. Am Psychol. (2014) 69:188–96. 10.1037/a0035254

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44.

  MahmoodAHuntNMasiewiczSCranfordJANoelSBrentCet alTreating 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. 10.1080/15360288.2023.2169433

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45.

  PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCDet alThe PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. (2021) 372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46.

  HigginsJPTAltmanDGSterneJAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: HigginsJPTGreenS, 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

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47.

  BaxterALCohenLLMcElveryHLLawsonMLvon BaeyerCL. An integration of vibration and cold relieves venipuncture pain in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2011) 27:1151–6. 10.1097/PEC.0b013e318237ace4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48.

  ÇelikEGSönmez DüzkayaD. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2023.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49.

  DüzkayaDSKarakulAAkoyİSönmez DüzkayaDAndiS. 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. 10.1016/j.ienj.2024.101502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50.

  FarionKJSplinterKLNewhookKGabouryI. 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. 10.1503/cmaj.070874

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51.

  GirginBAAktaşEKılınçDAykanat GirginBGözenD. Let’s prefer the pain reducing intervention, Buzzy or ShotBlocker: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs. (2020) 51:75–83. 10.5222/buchd.2020.13007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52.

  HaidarNAAl AmriMHSendadNGToaimahFHS. 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. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002965

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53.

  Halal Mehdi AlfataviHSadeghiTBaqer Hassan Mohammed Al-DakheelMet alEffects 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. 10.1080/24694193.2022.2091683

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54.

  SemerciRAkarsuÖKılıçD. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2022.08.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55.

  Sivri BilgenBBalcıS. 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. 10.4040/jkan.2019.49.4.486

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56.

  SivriBBBalcıSDolgunG. 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. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002866

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57.

  UzsenHTural BuyukEOdabasogluEKoyunM. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.12.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58.

  YıldırımBGGerçekerGÖ. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2022.09.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59.

  YilmazGAlemdarDK. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2019.04.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60.

  ZenginMYayanEH. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2021.10.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61.

  DaihimfarFBabamohamadiHGhorbaniR. 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. 10.1155/2024/2504732

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62.

  DüzkayaDSBozkurtGUlupınarSUysalGUçarSUysalolM. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2020.04.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63.

  LeeHNParkJWHwangSJungJYKimDKKwakYH. 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. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4426

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64.

  MillerKTanXHobsonADKhanAZivianiJO'BrienEet alA prospective randomized controlled trial of nonpharmacological pain management during intravenous cannulation in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2016) 32:444–51. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000000778

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65.

  AkarsuÖSemerciRKılınçD. 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. 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000709

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66.

  AliSMaKDowNVandermeerBScottSBeranTet alA 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. 10.1093/pch/pxaa089

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67.

  DowneyLVZunLS. The impact of watching cartoons for distraction during painful procedures in the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2012) 28:1033–5. 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31826cac1a

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68.

  DumoulinSBouchardSEllisJLavoieKLVézinaM-PCharbonneauPet alA 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. 10.1089/g4h.2018.0111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69.

  Míguez-NavarroC. 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.

  • Google Scholar

• 70.

  van der HeijdenMJEMeviusHvan der HeijdeNvan RosmalenJvan AsSvan DijkM. Children listening to music or watching cartoons during ER procedures: a RCT. J Pediatr Psychol. (2019) 44:1151–62. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsz066

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71.

  ArıkanAEsenayFI. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2020.05.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72.

  GoktasNAvciD. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.07.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73.

  HartlingLNewtonASLiangYJouHHewsonKKlassenTPet alMusic to reduce pain and distress in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. (2013) 167:826–35. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.200

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74.

  CanMÖzalp GerçekerG. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.07.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75.

  ChanEHovendenMRamageELingNPhamJHRahimAet alVirtual reality for pediatric needle procedural pain: two randomized clinical trials. J Pediatr. (2019) 209:160–7.e4. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.02.034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76.

  ChenYJChengSFLeePCLaiCHouI. Distraction using virtual reality for children during intravenous injections in an emergency department: a randomised trial. J Clin Nurs. (2020) 29:503–10. 10.1111/jocn.15088

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77.

  GoldmanRDBehboudiA. Virtual reality for intravenous placement in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. (2021) 180:725–31. 10.1007/s00431-020-03771-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78.

  OsmanlliuETrottierEDBaileyBLagacéMCertainMKhadraCet alDistraction 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. 10.1007/s43678-020-00006-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79.

  SchlechterAKWhitakerWIyerSGabrieleGWilkinsonM. 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. 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80.

  OlucNTas ArslanF. 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. 10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101386

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81.

  AliSManaloorRMaKSivakumarMBeranTScottSDet alA 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. 10.1007/s43678-020-00023-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82.

  CavenderKGoffMDHollonECGuzzettaCE. Parents’ positioning and distracting children during venipuncture: effects on children’s pain, fear, and distress. J Holist Nurs. (2004) 22:32–56. 10.1177/0898010104263306

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83.

  FellugaMRabachIMinuteMMonticoMGiorgiRLonciariIet alA 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. 10.1007/s00431-015-2688-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84.

  RimonAShalomSWolyniezIGruberASchachter-DavidovAGlatsteinM. 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.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 85.

  WolyniezIRimonAScolnikDGruberATavorOHavivEet alThe 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. 10.1177/0009922813502257

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86.

  KaracaTNCevik GunerU. 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. 10.1016/j.jen.2021.10.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87.

  Lilik LestariMPWandaDHayatiH. 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. 10.1080/24694193.2017.1386967

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88.

  ŞenTÇetinkayaB. The effect of virtual reality glasses used during intravenous catheter application on the child’s emotional responses. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 77:e251–6. 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.04.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89.

  CeylanMErkutZ. 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. 10.1016/j.ienj.2023.101348

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90.

  StevensonMDBivinsCMO’BrienKO'BrienKGonzalez del ReyJA. Child life intervention during angiocatheter insertion in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2005) 21:712–8. 10.1097/01.pec.0000186423.84764.5a

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91.

  BourdierSKhelifNVelasquezMUscladeARochetteEPereiraBet alCold vibration (Buzzy) versus anesthetic patch (EMLA) for pain prevention during cannulation in children: a randomized trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2021) 37:86–91. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001867

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92.

  BergomiPScudellerLPintaldiSDal MolinA. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2018.04.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93.

  BallardAKhadraCAdlerSTrottierEDLe MayS. 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. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000690

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94.

  JinFWangXQiMZhangWZhangY. 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. 10.1097/MD.0000000000037522

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95.

  YazŞBBaşdemirSGeçtanE. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.11.018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96.

  SchmelzM. Neuronal sensitivity of the skiN.Eur J Dermatol. (2011) 2:43–7. 10.1684/ejd.2011.1265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97.

  SonzaASanadaLSOliveiraLRBernardo-FilhoMSá-CaputoDCZaroMAet alWhole-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. 10.1177/1535370221991147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98.

  TobaldiniGSardiNFGuilhenVAFischerL. Pain inhibits pain: an ascending-descending pain modulation pathway linking mesolimbic and classical descending mechanisms. Mol Neurobiol. (2019) 56:1000–13. 10.1007/s12035-018-1116-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99.

  DefrinRSheraizinAMalichiLShachenO. Spatial summation and spatial discrimination of cold pain: effect of spatial configuration and skin type. Pain. (2011) 152:2739–45. 10.1016/j.pain.2011.08.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100.

  SelviFBedelCAkçimenM. Evaluation of vapocoolant spray effect on pain reduction during digital nerve block: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Emerg Med. (2021) 50:260–3. 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.08.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101.

  ShimoKOgawaSNiwaYTokiwaYDokitaAKatoSet alInhibition of current perception thresholds in A-delta and C fibers through somatosensory stimulation of the body surface. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:13705. 10.1038/s41598-022-18016-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102.

  PakalniskisJSoaresSRajanSVyshnevskaASchmelzMSolinskiHJet alHuman pain ratings to electrical sinusoids increase with cooling through a cold-induced increase in C-fibre excitability. Pain. (2023) 164:1524–36. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002849

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103.

  HollinsMMcDermottKHarperD. How does vibration reduce pain?Perception. (2014) 43:70–84. 10.1068/p7637

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104.

  WoodKHVer HoefLWKnightDC. Neural mechanisms underlying the conditioned diminution of the unconditioned fear response. Neuroimage. (2012) 60:787–99. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105.

  OdriozolaPGeeDG. Learning about safety: conditioned inhibition as a novel approach to fear reduction targeting the developing brain. Am J Psychiatry. (2021) 178:136–55. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20020232

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106.

  LaingPAFVervlietBDunsmoorJEHarrisonBJ. Pavlovian safety learning: an integrative theoretical review. Psychon Bull Rev. (2025) 32:176–202. 10.3758/s13423-024-02559-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107.

  BushnellMCČekoMLowLA. Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2013) 14:502–11. 10.1038/nrn3516

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108.

  HodginsMJLanderJ. Children’s coping with venipuncture. J Pain Symptom Manage. (1997) 13:274–85. 10.1016/s0885-3924(96)00328-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109.

  WangYJacksonTCaiL. Causal effects of threat and challenge appraisals on coping and pain perceptioN.Eur J Pain. (2016) 20:1111–20. 10.1002/ejp.835

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110.

  JamiesonJPHangenEJLeeHYYeagerDS. Capitalizing on appraisal processes to improve affective responses to social stress. Emot Rev. (2018) 10:30–9. 10.1177/1754073917693085

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111.

  WiechKPlonerMTraceyI. Neurocognitive aspects of pain perception. Trends Cogn Sci. (2008) 12:306–13. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112.

  AskewCFieldAP. Vicarious learning and the development of fears in childhood. Behav Res Ther. (2007) 45:2616–27. 10.1016/j.brat.2007.06.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113.

  KrauseLAskewC. Preventing and reducing fear using positive modelling: a systematic review of experimental research with children. Behav Res Ther. (2022) 148:103992. 10.1016/j.brat.2021.103992

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114.

  TurgutMATürkmenAS. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.02.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115.

  KoçSKüçük AlemdarD. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.05.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116.

  TaspinarFTurkmenAS. The impact of kaleidoscope on children’s pain and fear during sutures. Int Emerg Nurs. (2024) 77:101521. 10.1016/j.ienj.2024.101521

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117.

  ManciniFBeaumontA-LHuLHaggardPIannettiGDD. Touch inhibits subcortical and cortical nociceptive responses. Pain. (2015) 156:1936–44. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000253

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118.

  ZhaoKTangZWangHGuoYPengWHuL. Analgesia induced by self-initiated electrotactile sensation is mediated by top-down modulations. Psychophysiology. (2017) 54:848–56. 10.1111/psyp.12839

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119.

  BannisterKDickensonAH. The plasticity of descending controls in pain: translational probing. J Physiol. (2017) 595:4159–66. 10.1113/JP274165

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120.

  BlancCBuissonJ-CKruckJKostrubiecV. Haptic coordination: squeezing a vibrating stress ball decreases anxiety and arousal. Hum Mov Sci. (2024) 96:103220. 10.1016/j.humov.2024.103220

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121.

  FinchamGWStraussCMontero-MarinJCavanaghK. Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: a meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:432. 10.1038/s41598-022-27247-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122.

  ChinMSKalesSN. Is there an optimal autonomic state for enhanced flow and executive task performance?Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1716. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01716

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123.

  BuchananTLJanelleCM. Emotions and ensuing motor performance are altered by regulating breathing frequency: implications for emotion regulation and sport performance. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:963711. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.963711

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124.

  Merino-LobatoCRodríguez-GallegoIPabón-CarrascoMRomero-CastilloRJiménez-PicónN. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.08.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125.

  GuillariAGiordanoVCatoneMGallucciMReaT. Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce procedural needle pain in children (6-12 years): a systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. (2024) 78:e102–16. 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.06.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126.

  HuZYaoJHeLGuoY. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2024.07.027

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127.

  SavaşEHDemirASSemerciRKaradağA. 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. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128.

  TychsenLFoellerP. Effects of immersive virtual reality headset viewing on young children: visuomotor function, postural stability, and motion sickness. Am J Ophthalmol. (2020) 209:151–9. 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129.

  ValoriIMcKenna-PlumleyPEBayramovaRZandonella CallegherCAltoèGFarroniT. Proprioceptive accuracy in immersive virtual reality: a developmental perspective. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0222253. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222253

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130.

  NalivaikoEDavisSLBlackmoreKLVakulinANesbittKV. Cybersickness provoked by head-mounted display affects cutaneous vascular tone, heart rate and reaction time. Physiol Behav. (2015) 151:583–90. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.08.043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131.

  HoffmanHG. Interacting with virtual objects via embodied avatar hands reduces pain intensity and diverts attention. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:10672. 10.1038/s41598-021-89526-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132.

  LiJYangHXiaoYLiuX. 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. 10.1016/j.bja.2023.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133.

  LobelAGranicIStoneLLEngelsRCME. 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. 10.1089/cyber.2014.0128

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134.

  VerhoefREJvan DijkAVerhulpEEde CastroBO. Interactive virtual reality assessment of aggressive social information processing in boys with behaviour problems: a pilot study. Clin Psychol Psychother. (2021) 28:489–99. 10.1002/cpp.2620

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135.

  da Silva SoaresRJrRamirez-ChavezKLTufanogluABarretoCSatoJRAyazH. Cognitive effort during visuospatial problem solving in physical real world, on computer screen, and in virtual reality. Sensors. (2024) 24:977. 10.3390/s24030977

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136.

  MeheszEKarouiHStruttonPHHughesSW. 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. 10.1016/j.jpain.2020.12.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137.

  RossiSSantiniSJDi GenovaDMaggiGVerrottiAFarelloGet alUsing the social robot NAO for emotional support to children at a pediatric emergency department: randomized clinical trial. J Med Internet Res. (2022) 24:e29656. 10.2196/29656

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138.

  BeranTNRamirez-SerranoAVanderkooiOGKuhnS. Reducing children’s pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine. (2013) 31:2772–7. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139.

  OkitaSY. 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. 10.1089/cyber.2012.0513

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140.

  Lee-KruegerRCWPearsonJRSpencerANoelMBell-GrahamLBeranTN. Children’s pain during IV induction: a randomized-controlled trial with the MEDi® robot. J Pediatr Psychol. (2021) 46:991–1000. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsab028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141.

  CheXCashRChungSFitzgeraldPBFitzgibbonBM. 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. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142.

  RobertsMHKlatzkinRRMechlinB. Social support attenuates physiological stress responses and experimental pain sensitivity to cold pressor pain. Ann Behav Med. (2015) 49:557–69. 10.1007/s12160-015-9686-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143.

  McCarthyAMKleiberCHanrahanKZimmermanMBWesthusNAllenS. Impact of parent-provided distraction on child responses to an IV insertion. Child Health Care. (2010) 39:125–41. 10.1080/02739611003679915

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144.

  McCarthyAMKleiberCHanrahanKZimmermanMBErsigAWesthusNet alMatching 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. 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145.

  NewellAKeaneJMcGuireBEHearyCMcDarbyVDudleyBet alInteractive versus passive distraction and parent psychoeducation as pain management techniques during pediatric venepuncture: a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain. (2018) 34:1008–16. 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000628

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146.

  McMurtryMCChambersCTMcGrathPJAspE. When “don’t worry” communicates fear: children’s perceptions of parental reassurance and distraction during a painful medical procedure. Pain. (2010) 150:52–8. 10.1016/j.pain.2010.02.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147.

  MeiriNAnkriAHamad-SaiedMKonopnickiMPillarG. 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. 10.1007/s00431-015-2652-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148.

  DoeringSKatzlbergerFRumpoldGRoesslerSHofstoetterBSchatzDSet alVideotape preparation of patients before hip replacement surgery reduces stress. Psychosom Med. (2000) 62:365–73. 10.1097/00006842-200005000-00010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149.

  LiuYChenJPanYCaiYGeCChuHet alThe effects of video based nursing education on perioperative anxiety and depression in patients with gastric cancer. Psychol Health Med. (2021) 26:867–76. 10.1080/13548506.2020.1825756

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150.

  SogabeMOkahisaTFukuyaAKagemotoKOkadaYAdachiYet alEffects of audio and visual distraction on patients’ vital signs and tolerance during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. (2020) 20:122. 10.1186/s12876-020-01274-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151.

  GaoYWangNLiuN.Effectiveness of virtual reality in reducing preoperative anxiety in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. (2023) 79:3678–90. 10.1111/jan.15743

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152.

  QinZZhouCZhuYWangYCaoHHuangZ. Virtual reality for hypertension in tooth extraction: a randomized trial. J Dent Res. (2022) 101:400–6. 10.1177/00220345211049393

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153.

  RogersonOWildingSPrudenziAO’ConnorDB. Effectiveness of stress management interventions to change cortisol levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2024) 159:106415. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106415

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154.

  LunoeMMBolinAEDrendelAL. An evaluation of high preprocedural anxiety and venipuncture pain experienced by young children. Pediatr Emerg Care. (2021) 37:e621–4. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002424

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155.

  BlankenburgMBoekensHHechlerTMaierCKrumovaEScherensAet alReference values for quantitative sensory testing in children and adolescents: developmental and gender differences of somatosensory perception. Pain. (2010) 149:76–88. 10.1016/j.pain.2010.01.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156.

  RiggenbachAAmourouxRVan PetegemSTourniaireBTonelliAWienerSet alAutonomy 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. 10.1080/13548506.2020.1813900

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157.

  VervoortTTrostZVan RyckeghemDML. Children’s selective attention to pain and avoidance behaviour: the role of child and parental catastrophizing about pain. Pain. (2013) 154(10):1979–88. 10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.052

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158.

  RichardsonPABirnieKAHarrisonLERajagopalanABhandariRP. Profiling modifiable psychosocial factors among children with chronic pain: a person-centered methodology. J Pain. (2020) 21(3–4):467–76. 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.08.015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159.

  McCrackenLM. Personalized pain management: is it time for process-based therapy for particular people with chronic pain?Eur J Pain. (2023) 27(9):1044–55. 10.1002/ejp.2091

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160.

  BoutronIMoherDAltmanDGSchulzKFRavaudP, CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. (2008) 148(4):295–309. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar