This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

The Answer Is 17 Years, What Is the Question

Background
This review is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Needle-related procedures are a common source of pain and distress for children. Our previous review on this topic indicated that a number of psychological interventions were efficacious in managing pediatric needle pain, including distraction, hypnosis, and combined cognitive behavioural interventions. Considerable additional research in the area has been published since that time.

Objectives
To provide an update to our 2006 review assessing the efficacy of psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.

Search methods
Searches of the following databases were conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Web of Science. Requests for relevant studies were also posted on various electronic list servers. We ran an updated search in March 2012, and again in March 2013.

Selection criteria
Participants included children and adolescents aged two to 19 years undergoing needle-related procedures. Only RCTs with at least five participants in each study arm comparing a psychological intervention group with a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and a third author helped with data extraction and coding for one non-English study. Included studies were coded for quality using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were computed for all analyses using Review Manager 5.2 software.

Main results
Thirty-nine trials with 3394 participants were included. The most commonly studied needle procedures were venipuncture, intravenous (IV) line insertion, and immunization. Studies included children aged two to 19 years, with the most evidence available for children under 12 years of age. Consistent with the original review, the most commonly studied psychological interventions for needle procedures were distraction, hypnosis, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The majority of included studies (19 of 39) examined distraction only. The additional studies from this review update continued to provide strong evidence for the efficacy of distraction and hypnosis. No evidence was available to support the efficacy of preparation and information, combined CBT (at least two or more cognitive or behavioural strategies combined), parent coaching plus distraction, suggestion, or virtual reality for reducing children's pain and distress. No conclusions could be drawn about interventions of memory alteration, parent positioning plus distraction, blowing out air, or distraction plus suggestion, as evidence was available from single studies only. In addition, the Risk of bias scores indicated several domains with high or unclear bias scores (for example, selection, detection, and performance bias) suggesting that the methodological rigour and reporting of RCTs of psychological interventions continue to have considerable room for improvement.

Authors' conclusions
Overall, there is strong evidence supporting the efficacy of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children and adolescents, with no evidence currently available for preparation and information or both, combined CBT, parent coaching plus distraction, suggestion, or virtual reality. Additional research is needed to further assess interventions that have only been investigated in one RCT to date (that is, memory alteration, parent positioning plus distraction, blowing out air, and distraction plus suggestion). There are continuing issues with the quality of trials examining psychological interventions for needle-related pain and distress.

/pdf/psychological-interventions-for-needle-related-procedural-1ghadgun21.pdf

Psychological interventions for needle‐related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents.

Background
Infant acute pain and distress is commonplace. Infancy is a period of exponential development. Unrelieved pain and distress can have implications across the lifespan.  This is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10 2011 entitled 'Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain'.

Objectives
To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, and music. Analyses were run separately for infant age (preterm, neonate, older) and pain response (pain reactivity, immediate pain regulation). 

Search methods
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2 of 12, 2015), MEDLINE-Ovid platform (March 2015), EMBASE-OVID platform (April 2011 to March 2015), PsycINFO-OVID platform (April 2011 to February 2015), and CINAHL-EBSCO platform (April 2011 to March 2015). We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. New studies were incorporated into the review. We refined search strategies with a Cochrane-affiliated librarian. For this update, nine articles from the original 2011 review pertaining to Kangaroo Care were excluded, but 21 additional studies were added.

Selection criteria
Participants included infants from birth to three years. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT cross-overs that had a no-treatment control comparison were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. However, when the additive effects of a non-pharmacological intervention could be assessed, these studies were also included. We examined studies that met all inclusion criteria except for study design (e.g. had an active control) to qualitatively contextualize results. There were 63 included articles in the current update.

Data collection and analysis
Study quality ratings and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE approach. We analysed the standardized mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method.

Main results
Sixty-three studies, with 4905 participants, were analysed. The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel-sticks (32 studies) and needles (17 studies). The largest SMD for treatment improvement over control conditions on pain reactivity were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (neonate: SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.38) and swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.89; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.40). For immediate pain regulation, the largest SMDs were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.23; neonate: SMD -0.90; 95% CI -1.54 to -0.25; older infant: SMD -1.34; 95% CI -2.14 to -0.54), swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.71; 95% CI -1.00 to -0.43), and rocking/holding (neonate: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.30). Fifty two of our 63 trials did not report adverse events. The presence of significant heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of very low quality evidence.

Authors' conclusions
There is evidence that different non-pharmacological interventions can be used with preterms, neonates, and older infants to significantly manage pain behaviors associated with acutely painful procedures. The most established evidence was for non-nutritive sucking, swaddling/facilitated tucking, and rocking/holding. All analyses reflected that more research is needed to bolster our confidence in the direction of the findings. There are significant gaps in the existing literature on non-pharmacological management of acute pain in infancy.

Non‐pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

With an ever-increasing plethora of studies being published in the health sciences, it is challenging if not impossible for busy clinicians and researchers alike to keep up with the literature. Reviews summarizing the outcomes of various intervention trials are therefore an extremely efficient method for obtaining the “bottom line” about what works and what doesn’t.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/mdkhlt-rwnshnkhty-bry-drd-w-nrhty-nshy-z-prwsyjrhy-mrtbt-b-2b7sk8y3e4.pdf

مداخلات روانشناختی برای درد و ناراحتی ناشی از پروسیجرهای مرتبط با سوزن در کودکان و نوجوانان

/pdf/psychological-interventions-for-needle-related-procedural-bmd0tjy12s.pdf

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

Objective Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support the efficacy of psychological interventions for procedural pain management. However, methodological limitations (e.g., inadequate randomization) have affected the quality of this research, thereby weakening RCT findings. Methods Detailed quality coding was conducted on 28 RCTs included in a systematic review of psychological interventions for pediatric procedural pain. Results The majority of RCTs were of poor to low quality (criteria reported in < 50% of RCTs). Commonly reported criteria addressed study background, conditions, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. Commonly nonreported criteria included treatment administration, evaluation of treatment efficacy (effect sizes, summary statistics, intention-to-treat analyses), caregiver demographics, follow-up, and participant flow. Quality was greater in more recent trials, and did not vary by journal type (psychology vs. medical). Conclusion Despite poor quality ratings, quality reporting in psychological RCTs for pediatric procedural pain has improved over time. Recommendations for quality enhancement are provided.

/pdf/assessing-the-quality-of-randomized-controlled-trials-1t14svjydl.pdf

Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Examining Psychological Interventions for Pediatric Procedural Pain: Recommendations for Quality Improvement

Lindsay S Uman

Papers

Psychological interventions for needle‐related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

مداخلات روانشناختی برای درد و ناراحتی ناشی از پروسیجرهای مرتبط با سوزن در کودکان و نوجوانان

Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents

Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Examining Psychological Interventions for Pediatric Procedural Pain: Recommendations for Quality Improvement