Skip to main content
Download PDF

Active versus passive distraction for reducing procedural pain and anxiety in children: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Italian Journal of Pediatrics volume 49, Article number: 109 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Procedural pain is very important in clinical children care. We aimed to evaluate the effects of active versus passive distraction for reducing procedural pain and anxiety in children.

Methods

Two researchers searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, SinoMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Weipu databases for the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on the active versus passive distraction affecting procedural pain and anxiety in children until May 18, 2023. The literature screening and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data analysis.

Results

13 RCTs were finally included. 553 children received active distraction intervention and 551 children received passive distraction intervention. There were no significant differences in the children self-reported procedural pain betweent active and passive distraction. The parent-reported procedural pain, medical staff-reported procedural pain, children-reported procedural anxiety, parent-reported procedural anxiety, medical staff-reported procedural anxiety in the active distraction were significant less than that of active distraction. Egger regression analysis showed that there was no publication bias in the results.

Conclusions

Existing evidence suggests that active distraction may be more effective in reducing operational pain and anxiety in children than passive distraction. More studies on the effects of active distraction versus passive distraction in children with larger sample size are needed in the future.

Introduction

Pain is an unpleasant feeling and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or a similar experience. Operational pain is usually related to invasive operation or diagnostic examination such as venipuncture, lumbar puncture and so on. Repeated experience of operational pain can lead to short-term and long-term adverse effects, such as loss of appetite, changes in hormone and metabolic levels, physiological reactions and cognitive behavior changes [1, 2]. More than 50% of hospitalized children and adolescents who received venipuncture experienced moderate to severe pain and anxiety, and these pain-related stresses may affect not only physical, social and cognitive functions, but also emotional and psychological effects on children and their families [3,4,5]. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines provide medical staff with advice and techniques for the management of pain control in pediatric patients, pain control in infants and young children is not as good as that in adults [6]. In order to reduce pain, anxiety and fear in children with venipuncture and intravenous catheterization, drug and non-drug treatments are used to control pain in children. Many non-drug treatments have been effectively used to reduce pain in school-age children with adequate cognitive development. one of the most effective non-pharmacological methods is attention distraction, including comics, kaleidoscope, bubble blowing, playing games, virtual reality, etc., which can effectively reduce children’s short-term operational pain [7, 8]. Distraction is based on diverting children’s attention to attracting people and things. A commonly used non-drug pain intervention based on the assumption that children’s ability to deal with pain stimuli is hampered, thereby reducing pain and anxiety, which is used by medical staff and parents to reduce operational pain and anxiety in children [9].

Distraction can be divided into active distraction that requires participants to actively participate in stimulating activities such as playing video games, etc. and passive distraction that does not require children to participate in stimulating interaction such as watching cartoons, listening to music, etc. [10,11,12]. At present, the relevant systematic review [13] shows that distraction has a significant effect on reducing operational pain in children. Some studies have compared the effects of active distraction and passive distraction on reducing operational pain in children, but the results are different and inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically collected and compared the effects of active distraction and passive distraction on reducing operational pain in children, and evaluated the effects of active distraction and passive distraction on reducing operational pain and anxiety in children, to provide evidence support for the care of procedural pain and anxiety in children.

Methods

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA) statement [14].

The two researchers searched the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, SinoMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Weipu databases about the distraction affecting procedural pain and anxiety in children until May 18, 2023. The keywords of this meta analysis for databases seache as follows: (“complementary” OR “alternative” OR “integrative” OR “nonpharmacologic” OR “active” OR “passive” OR “distraction”) AND (“Venipuncture” OR “blood draw” OR “peripheral cannulation” OR " pain” OR “anxiety” OR “painful procedures” OR “procedural”) AND (“infant” OR “child” OR “adolescent”). Through the combination of subject words and free words, the retrieval strategy was conducted with Boolean operators. At the same time, we sorted out the references of inclusive studies and related topics, in order to obtain the relevant literature as much as possible.

The inclusion criteria of this meta analysis were as follows: (1) study type: randomized controlled trials (RCT); regardless of whether the allocation scheme was hidden or not and the blind method was used. (2) the study population were children aged 1 to 16 years old; (3) active and or passive distractions were used as intervention measures in the process of procedure in children. (4) outcome indicators: the pain and anxiety scale score reported by the children self; medical staff reported pain and anxiety scale score; parents reported pain and anxiety scale score. The exclusion criteria for this meta analysis were as follows: (1) studies on non-drug treatment of cancer and chronic diseases; (2) studies of newborns or patients less than one year old; (4) studies of analgesic intervention in combination with other drugs; and (4) cases, reviews or basic experimental studies.

The literature screening and data extraction were carried out by two researchers strictly according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, including the author, the year of publication, the consistency of the baseline information, the number of study cases, the nursing measures of the control group and the intervention group, the place of the study, the age of the children, the outcome index and specific values, and the final results were cross-checked. The divergent studies are discussed and determined, and if no agreement can be reached, it is decided by the third researcher.

This meta analysis evaluated the bias risk of the included study according to the Cochrane system Evaluation Manual [15], which requires two researchers to evaluate independently. The evaluation included seven aspects: (1) random allocation method; (2) hidden allocation scheme; (3) whether blind method was applied to research subjects and implementers; (4) whether blind method was applied to medical staff of research results. (5) completeness of outcome data, (6) selective reporting of outcome data, and (7) other sources of bias. The above evaluation work was carried out independently by two researchers, and the divergent studies were discussed and determined, if not determined by the third researcher.

This meta analysis used Review Manager 5.3 software for data analysis. Because different scale evaluation methods are used in each study, recommended by Cochrane Collaborative Network, the standardized mean difference (SMD) wass calculated using 95% confidence interval (CI). All the mean differences shown in the pictures and tables in the result part were SMD. First of all, we analyzed the clinical characteristics and research methodology of the population included in the study in detail, and made a descriptive analysis if there were differences between clinical characteristics and/or research methodology; on the contrary, Cochran Q test and I2 were used for quantitative analysis of heterogeneity. If the merged results exist in statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.1), the objects and methodology included in the study should be analyzed again. If there was no specific source of heterogeneity, the random effect model would be used for meta analysis. In the process of merging results, the research data analysis would be removed individually and the fixed effect model would be selected to merge the data again, and the robustness of the results would be tested. On the contrary, the heterogeneity among the studies was small (P ≥ 0.1), and the data were analyzed by fixed effect model for meta analysis. P < 0.05 showed that there was significant difference between the two groups.

Results

According to the literature retrieval strategy set in this study, a total of 180 articles were retrieved and selected layer by layer according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 13 RCTs [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] were included in the final analysis. The flow chart of screening is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of RCTs selection

Full size image

Of the 13 RCTs included, 12 RCTs [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] were reported in English and 1 RCT [28] was reported in Chinese. A total of 1104 children were included, 553 children received active distraction intervention and 551 children received passive distraction intervention. Among the 13 RCTs, the types of operational pain included venipuncture, wound dressing change and dental restoration surgery. The research sites included China, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Sweden and Ireland. The specific features included in RCTs are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of included 13 RCTs
Full size table

We use the quality evaluation standard of Cochrane manual to evaluate the quality of included RCTs, and the overall literature quality was good. As shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, only 2 RCTs articles did not describe the specific random method. Because of the particularity of the intervention, it was difficult to achieve the blind method of the research object and the intervention, but the blind method of the results evaluator could be used to reduce the bias caused by the blind method of the intervention, but only 2 articles had explained the blind method of the evaluator or the use of two-person independent evaluation to reduce the bias. No other related biases were found amongst the included 13 RCTs.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias graph

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of bias summary

Full size image

All 13 RCTs reported the children self-reported procedural pain scores. As shown in Fig. 4A, There were statistically significant heterogneity(I2 = 85%, P < 0.01), and random effect model was selected for data analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that there were no significant differences in the children self-reported procedural pain betweent active and passive distraction[SMD=-0.02, 95%CI=(-0.34, 0.29), P = 0.88].

Fig. 4
figure 4

The forest plots for the children self-repo rted, parent-reported and medical staff- reported procedural pain

Full size image

Five RCTs reported the parent-reported procedural pain. As shown in Fig. 4B, There were no statistically significant heterogneity(I2 = 17%, P = 0.31), and fixed effect model was selected for data analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that the parent-reported procedural pain in the active distraction was significant less than that of active distraction [SMD=-0.26, 95%CI=(-0.44, -0.08), P = 0.004].

Five RCTs reported the medical staff -reported procedural pain. As shown in Fig. 4C, There were no statistically significant heterogneity(I2 = 41%, P = 0.17), and fixed effect model was selected for data analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that the medical staff-reported procedural pain in the active distraction was significant less than that of active distraction [SMD=-0.45, 95%CI=(-0.64, -0.26), P < 0.001].

Three RCTs reported the children-reported procedural anxiety. As shown in Fig. 5A, There were no statistically significant heterogneity(I2 = 0%, P = 0.43), and fixed effect model was selected for data analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that the children-reported procedural anxiety in the active distraction was significant less than that of active distraction [SMD=-0.34, 95%CI=(-0.60, -0.08), P = 0.01].

Fig. 5
figure 5

The forest plots for the children self-reported, parent-reported and medical staff- reported procedural anxiety

Full size image

Four RCTs reported the parent-reported procedural anxiety. As shown in Fig. 5B, There were no statistically significant heterogneity(I2 = 30%, P = 0.23), and fixed effect model was selected for data analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that the parent-reported procedural anxiety in the active distraction was significant less than that of active distraction [SMD=-0.36, 95%CI=(-0.56, -0.17), P < 0.001].

Five RCTs reported the medical staff -reported procedural anxiety. As shown in Fig. 5C, There were no statistically significant heterogneity(I2 = 48%, P = 0.12), and fixed effect model was selected for data analysis. Meta-analysis indicated that the medical staff-reported procedural anxiety in the active distraction was significant less than that of active distraction [SMD=-0.46, 95%CI=(-0.66, -0.27), P < 0.001].

The results of each synthesied analysis were analyzed by inverted funnel diagram to determine whether there was publication bias. As shown in Fig. 6, the inverted funnel graphs were symmetrical, and the results of Egger regression analysis showed that there was no publication bias in the results (all P > 0.05).

Fig. 6
figure 6

The funnel plots for synthesized outcomes

Full size image

Discussions

In some cases, drug treatment may cause side effects such as drug allergy, no adverse reactions are found when active or passive distraction interventions are used; and there is no increase in economic cost [29, 30]. And the use of distraction can be implemented through simple training, such as storytelling, watching TV, listening to music, playing with toys or parent interaction, etc., in clinical work, medical staff and parents often distract children during medical operations. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based support in type selection, use time, evaluation effect and intensity [31,32,33]. Some studies [34, 35] emphasize the importance and necessity for children to choose the type and type of distraction according to their own preferences. Combining the results of 13 RCTs, the meta analysis results of this study show that active distraction can effectively reduce the procedural pain and anxiety of children.

Some studies [36, 37] have shown that distraction can improve children’s cooperation, reduce children’s crying time, reduce children’s plasma cortisol concentration during operation, and reduce children’s discomfort. Previous studies [38, 39] have suggested that children’s pain has not been effectively controlled because the central nervous system of infants and children is considered insufficient to translate, transmit, regulate and perceive pain; due to developments in the field of physiology and behavior, it has been recognized that the central nervous system begins to translate, transmit and regulate nociceptive stimuli from the 23rd week of pregnancy. Studies [40, 41] have confirmed the effectiveness of drug treatment and non-drug intervention in pain, sometimes the use of drugs alone for pain control is not enough, it is recommended to use non-drug treatment in some cases in order to shift the patient’s attention to alternative factors. Distraction is by diverting patients’ attention from medical operations to other things, limiting pain perception, changing operational pain responses and suppressing pain symptoms [42, 43]. The use of distraction techniques is an effective intervention that can improve children’s emotional effects and reduce pain.

Some studies [44, 45] have shown that active distraction has a more significant effect on reducing cold pressor pain, but there are some differences in the clinical environment. The reason for this may be that active distraction requires multi-sensory participation in the interception of pain stimuli, which is generally considered to be better than passive distraction, but for some children who experience pain, it is challenging to participate in active distraction [46]. It mainly depends on the will and ability of the participants. In addition, studies [47, 48] have found that children over the age of 10 benefit from the inclusion of virtual reality technology in video games, while children aged 6 to 10 do not. Because the age span of the children included in this study is large, and the children are not grouped by age, there is no subgroup analysis of age. At the same time, the active distraction methods included in the literature include distraction card, tablet computer, mother-child interaction and so on. The passive distraction methods include watching video, listening to music, lollipop and so on. Some scholars [49, 50] provide customized procedural preparation content through multi-mode distraction devices, which are related to medicine and are suitable for the development of young children, as well as distracting games to immerse children in multi-sensory stimuli. The results show that pain stimulation can be effectively and significantly reduced in the emergency environment. Therefore, it is necessary to implement personalized distraction methods according to children’s age, level of development, temperament and type of treatment and interest [51, 52].

There are some limitations in this study that are worth considering. First of all, part of the research included in this study is that there is a certain heterogeneity between the multiple intervention programs and the passive group. Secondly, the languages of the study are English and Chinese, and the retrieval database is limited, there may be a risk of language bias and incomplete retrieval.

Finally, age can affect the effect of the distraction intervention program. Because there is no effective data in the literature, follow-up study may shorten the age scope of the cihldren or adopt the age-grouped RCT in the future.

Conclusions

In conclusion, with 13 RCTs included, this meta-analysis has found that active distraction may be more beneficial to reduce the procedural pain and anxiety of children than of passive distraction, but there is still no significnat difference in the children self-reported procedural pain betweent active and passive distraction. Clinically, distraction measures should be reasonably chosen according to children’s age and personal preferences to reduce the procedural pain and anxiety, thereby improving the children experience and care quality.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The original data will be available from corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

RCTs:

randomized controlled trials

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

SMD:

standardized mean difference

CI:

confidence interval

References

  1. Niu T, Liu M, Fang Y, Liu Y, Zhang X. Post-operative pain in children: comparison of pain scores between parents and children. J Paediatr Child Health 2023.

  2. Escobar-Castellanos M, Miguez-Navarro MC, Garcia-Mancebo J, Fernandez-Monteagudo B, Pascual-Garcia P, Guerrero-Marquez G, Rivas-Garcia A. How much do parents know about Pain in their children? Pediatr Emerg Care. 2023;39(1):40–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Caru M, Alberts NM, Freeman MC, Dandekar SC, Rao P, McKeone DJ, Brown VI, McGregor LM, Schmitz KH. Chronic pain in children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer: the challenge of mitigating the pain and the potential of integrating exercise into pain management. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31(4):228.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marchetti G, Vittori A, Cascella M, Mascilini I, Piga S, Petrucci E, Castellano A, Caruso R, Francia E, Stocchi F, et al. Pain prevalence and pain management in children and adolescents in an italian third level pediatric hospital: a cross-sectional study. Ital J Pediatr. 2023;49(1):41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mahon P, Aitken C, Veiga M, Poitras S. Time for action: understanding Health Care Professionals views on Pain and Pain Management in a Pediatric Hospital. Pain Manag Nurs. 2023;24(2):171–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Assefa M, LeClerc I, Muggah E, Deonandan R, Godbout C, Finestone HM. Chronic noncancer pain management: integration of a nurse-led program in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2023;69(3):e52–e60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shahrbabaki RM, Nourian M, Farahani AS, Nasiri M, Heidari A. Effectiveness of listening to music and playing with Lego on children’s postoperative pain. J Pediatr Nurs. 2023;69:e7–e12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Palomaa AK, Hakala M, Polkki T. Parents’ perceptions of their child’s pain assessment in hospital care: a cross-sectional study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2023;71:79–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lambert V, Boylan P, Boran L, Hicks P, Kirubakaran R, Devane D, Matthews A. Virtual reality distraction for acute pain in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10(10):CD010686.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Erdogan B, Aytekin Ozdemir A. The Effect of three different methods on Venipuncture Pain and anxiety in children: distraction cards, virtual reality, and Buzzy(R) (Randomized Controlled Trial). J Pediatr Nurs. 2021;58:e54–e62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delgado A, Ok SM, Ho D, Lynd T, Cheon K. Evaluation of children’s pain expression and behavior using audio visual distraction. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021;7(5):795–802.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Arane K, Behboudi A, Goldman RD. Virtual reality for pain and anxiety management in children. Can Fam Physician. 2017;63(12):932–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jiang Y, Lu Q, Shao Z. Meta analysis of the effectiveness of active and passive distraction in reducing operational pain in children. Nurs Res. 2021;35(5):7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdelmoniem SA, Mahmoud SA. Comparative evaluation of passive, active, and passive-active distraction techniques on pain perception during local anesthesia administration in children. J Adv Res. 2016;7(3):551–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nilsson S, Enskar K, Hallqvist C, Kokinsky E. Active and passive distraction in children undergoing wound dressings. J Pediatr Nurs. 2013;28(2):158–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Crevatin F, Cozzi G, Braido E, Bertossa G, Rizzitelli P, Lionetti D, Matassi D, Calusa D, Ronfani L, Barbi E. Hand-held computers can help to distract children undergoing painful venipuncture procedures. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105(8):930–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bellieni CV, Cordelli DM, Raffaelli M, Ricci B, Morgese G, Buonocore G. Analgesic effect of watching TV during venipuncture. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91(12):1015–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Attar RH, Baghdadi ZD. Comparative efficacy of active and passive distraction during restorative treatment in children using an iPad versus audiovisual eyeglasses: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(1):1–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aydin D, Sahiner NC. Effects of music therapy and distraction cards on pain relief during phlebotomy in children. Appl Nurs Res. 2017;33:164–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Canbulat N, Inal S, Sonmezer H. Efficacy of distraction methods on procedural pain and anxiety by applying distraction cards and kaleidoscope in children. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2014;8(1):23–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Newell A, Keane J, McGuire BE, Heary C, McDarby V, Dudley B, Moran J, Francis K, Caes L. Interactive Versus Passive distraction and parent psychoeducation as Pain Management Techniques during Pediatric Venepuncture: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin J Pain. 2018;34(11):1008–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aydin D, Sahiner NC, Ciftci EK. Comparison of the effectiveness of three different methods in decreasing pain during venipuncture in children: ball squeezing, balloon inflating and distraction cards. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(15–16):2328–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Arikan A, Esenay FI. Active and Passive Distraction Interventions in a Pediatric Emergency Department to reduce the Pain and anxiety during venous blood sampling: a Randomized Clinical Trial. J Emerg Nurs. 2020;46(6):779–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shekhar S, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, Rao A, Rao A. Effect of active and passive distraction techniques while administering local anaesthesia on the dental anxiety, behaviour and pain levels of children: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022;23(3):417–27.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Xiang H, Shen J, Wheeler KK, Patterson J, Lever K, Armstrong M, Shi J, Thakkar RK, Groner JI, Noffsinger D, et al. Efficacy of smartphone active and Passive virtual reality distraction vs Standard Care on burn Pain among Pediatric Patients: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2112082.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Minhui Z, Na D, Yue Z. Application of distraction in relieving venipuncture pain in children. Qilu J Nurs. 2011;17(10):71–2.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Inan G, Inal S. The impact of 3 different distraction techniques on the Pain and anxiety levels of children during venipuncture: a clinical trial. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(2):140–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dancel R, Liles EA, Fiore D. Acute Pain Management in Hospitalized Children. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2017;12(4):277–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fusetti V, Re L, Pigni A, Tallarita A, Cilluffo S, Caraceni AT, Lusignani M. Clown therapy for procedural pain in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(6):2215–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Susam V, Friedel M, Basile P, Ferri P, Bonetti L. Efficacy of the Buzzy System for pain relief during venipuncture in children: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Biomed. 2018;89(6–S):6–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tran Thi TH, Konara Mudiyanselage SP, Huang MC. Effects of Distraction on reducing Pain during Invasive Procedures in children with Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Pain Manag Nurs. 2022;23(3):281–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Birnie KA, Noel M, Chambers CT, Uman LS, Parker JA. Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10(10):CD005179.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cho MK, Choi MY. Effect of distraction intervention for needle-related Pain and Distress in Children: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021, 18(17).

  36. Bukola IM, Paula D. The effectiveness of distraction as Procedural Pain Management technique in Pediatric Oncology Patients: a Meta-analysis and systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(4):589–600e581.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hundert AS, Birnie KA, Abla O, Positano K, Cassiani C, Lloyd S, Tiessen PH, Lalloo C, Jibb LA, Stinson J. A pilot randomized controlled trial of virtual reality distraction to reduce Procedural Pain during Subcutaneous Port Access in Children and Adolescents with Cancer. Clin J Pain. 2021;38(3):189–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Lijia G, Wenxiao G, Jing Z. The effect of body-possessing illusion on pain and its mechanism. Adv Psychol Sci. 2022;30(11):2518–28.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yingjie W, Yang L. Research progress on the cognition and management of neonatal pain. PLA J Nurs. 2012;12(8):37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Armstrong M, Lun J, Groner JI, Thakkar RK, Fabia R, Noffsinger D, Ni A, Keesari R, Xiang H. Mobile phone virtual reality game for pediatric home burn dressing pain management: a randomized feasibility clinical trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022;8(1):186.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Gold JI, SooHoo M, Laikin AM, Lane AS, Klein MJ. Effect of an immersive virtual reality intervention on Pain and anxiety Associated with Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Placement in the Pediatric setting: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2122569.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee HN, Park JW, Hwang S, Jung JY, Kim DK, Kwak YH, Lee EJ. 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(1):25–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gezginci E, Suluhan D, Caliskan MB. Is tablet-based interactive distraction effective on pain and anxiety during circumcision in children? A randomized controlled trial. Turk J Urol. 2021;47(6):518–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Dahlquist LM, McKenna KD, Jones KK, Dillinger L, Weiss KE, Ackerman CS. Active and passive distraction using a head-mounted display helmet: effects on cold pressor pain in children. Health Psychol. 2007;26(6):794–801.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dahlquist LM, Weiss KE, Law EF, Sil S, Herbert LJ, Horn SB, Wohlheiter K, Ackerman CS. Effects of videogame distraction and a virtual reality type head-mounted display helmet on cold pressor pain in young elementary school-aged children. J Pediatr Psychol. 2010;35(6):617–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Guinot F, Mercade M, Oprysnyk L, Veloso A, Boj JR. Comparison of active versus passive audiovisual distraction tools on children’s behaviour, anxiety and pain in paediatric dentistry: a randomised crossover clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2021;22(3):230–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Furness PJ, Phelan I, Babiker NT, Fehily O, Lindley SA, Thompson AR. Reducing Pain during Wound Dressings in burn Care using virtual reality: a study of Perceived Impact and Usability with Patients and Nurses. J Burn Care Res. 2019;40(6):878–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wohlheiter KA, Dahlquist LM. Interactive versus passive distraction for acute pain management in young children: the role of selective attention and development. J Pediatr Psychol. 2013;38(2):202–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Vetri Buratti C, Angelino F, Sansoni J, Fabriani L, Mauro L, Latina R. Distraction as a technique to control pain in pediatric patients during venipuncture. A narrative review of literature. Prof Inferm. 2015;68(1):52–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Murphy G. Distraction techniques for venepuncture: a review. Paediatr Nurs. 2009;21(3):18–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ugucu G, Akdeniz Uysal D, Guzel Polat O, Artuvan Z, Polat Kulcu D, Aksu D, Gulgun Altintas M, Cetin H, Orekici Temel G. Effects of cartoon watching and bubble-blowing during venipuncture on pain, fear, and anxiety in children aged 6–8 years: a randomized experimental study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2022;65:e107–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Alsibai E, Bshara N, Alzoubi H, Alsabek L. Assessing an active distracting technique during primary mandibular molar pulpotomy (randomized controlled trial). Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(2):283–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ting Shen, Xixi Wang and Qiaoyun Xue contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency, Children’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, No. 72, Guangzhou Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China

    Ting Shen, Xixi Wang, Qiaoyun Xue & Dan Chen

Authors
  1. Ting Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xixi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiaoyun Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T S, D C designed research; T S, X W, Q X, D C conducted research; T S, X W, Q X analyzed data; T S, X W wrote the first draft of manuscript; D C had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

In this study, all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Ethics approval and consent to participate are not necessary since the study was a meta-analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shen, T., Wang, X., Xue, Q. et al. Active versus passive distraction for reducing procedural pain and anxiety in children: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ital J Pediatr 49, 109 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13052-023-01518-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13052-023-01518-4

Keywords

Italian Journal of Pediatrics

ISSN: 1824-7288

Contact us