Virtual reality-based distraction for intravenous insertion-related distress in children: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) insertions are among the most performed procedures for children seeking medical care; they are often a painful and stressful experience for both children and their caregivers. Paediatric distress and pain that is inadequately treated may lead to a frightened and uncooperative child, repeated IV attempts and overall frustration with care for both the family and clinical team. We hypothesise that distraction via an immersive virtual reality (VR) experience may reduce the associated distress for children undergoing IV insertions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-armed randomised controlled superiority trial will be conducted in a Canadian paediatric emergency department and will aim to enrol 80 children overall. Children will be randomised to receive either departmental standard of care alone or standard of care plus an immersive VR experience. Children 6-17 years of age who are undergoing IV insertion and have topical anaesthetic application will be considered for inclusion. Our primary objective is to compare the reduction of distress between the two study arms. The primary outcome will be the child's observed distress score as measured by the Observational Signs of Behavioral Distress-Revised tool. Secondary outcomes include the child's pain intensity and fear, parental anxiety, satisfaction with the IV procedure, as well as adverse events. Recruitment launched in September 2020 and is expected to end in March 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Health Research Ethics Board (University of Alberta). Informed consent will be obtained from parents or guardians, and assent from children. Study data will be submitted for publication irrespective of results. This study is funded through a Women and Children's Health Research Institute Innovation grant. Purchase of the VR equipment was facilitated through a Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation small equipment grant. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04291404Cite Now.

Pet therapy in the emergency department and ambulatory care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pet therapy, or animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), has demonstrated positive effects for patients, families, and health care providers (HCPs) in inpatient settings. However, the evidence supporting AAIs in emergency or ambulatory care settings is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of AAIs on patient, family, and HCP experience in these settings. METHODS: We searched (from inception to May 2020) Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, plus gray literature, for studies assessing AAIs in emergency and ambulatory care settings on: (1) patient and family anxiety/distress or pain and (2) HCP stress. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done in duplicate with conflicts adjudicated by a third party. Random-effects meta-analyses are reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as appropriate. RESULTS: We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 341 patients, 146 HCPs, 122 child caregivers), four before-after (83 patients), and one mixed-method study (124 patients). There was no effect across three RCTs measuring patient-reported anxiety/distress (n = 380; SMD = -0.36, 95% CI = -0.95 to 0.23, I2  = 81%), while two before-after studies suggested a benefit (n = 80; SMD = -1.95, 95% CI = -2.99 to -0.91, I2  = 72%). Four RCTs found no difference in measures of observed anxiety/distress (n = 166; SMD = -0.44, 95% CI = -1.01 to 0.13, I2  = 73%) while one before-after study reported a significant benefit (n = 60; SMD = -1.64, 95% CI = -2.23 to -1.05). Three RCTs found no difference in patient-reported pain (n = 202; MD = -0.90, 95% CI = -2.01 to 0.22, I2  = 68%). Two RCTs reported positive but nonsignificant effects on HCP stress. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available on the effectiveness of AAIs in emergency and ambulatory care settings. Rigorous studies using global experience-oriented (or patient-identified) outcome measures are required.