Exploring implementation processes of a parent-targeted educational video for improving newborn pain treatment: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods study.

Despite known analgesic effects of breastfeeding (BF), skin-to-skin care (SSC), and sweet solutions (sucrose) for newborns, these interventions remain underutilized. Our team produced a five-minute parent-targeted video (BSweet2Babies) demonstrating BF, SSC, and sucrose during newborn blood sampling. We conducted a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study with eight maternal-newborn units across Ontario, Canada to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the video and the three pain management strategies.Over a 6-month period, data collection included 15 telephone interviews, two email communications, and three community of practice teleconferences with the participating sites (n = 8). We used the Theoretical Domains Framework as the coding matrix. Participants discussed integrating the video in prenatal education and the importance of involving leadership when planning for practice change. Key barriers included lack of comfort with parental presence, perception of high complexity of the strategies, short postpartum stays, competing priorities, and interprofessional challenges. Key facilitators included alignment with the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, modeling by Lactation Consultants, and frequent reminders.

Be Sweet to Hospitalized Toddlers During Venipuncture: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Sucrose Compared With Water.

OBJECTIVES: High-quality evidence demonstrates analgesic effects of sweet-tasting solutions for infants during painful procedures. However, evidence of the analgesic effects of sucrose beyond 12 months of age is less certain. The aim of this study was to ascertain the efficacy of oral sucrose in hospitalized toddlers (ages 12 to 36 mo) compared with placebo (water) during venipuncture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blinded, 2-armed randomized controlled trial including hospitalized toddlers aged 12 to 36 months. Toddlers were randomized to either 25% sucrose or water before venipuncture, stratified by age (12 to 24 mo and more than 24 to 36 mo). Standard of care included topical anesthetics for both groups. Pain assessment included cry duration and FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability) scores. Descriptive statistics and linear models were used to report the percentage of time crying and mean differences in FLACC scores. Data analysis was performed using R, version 3.6.3. RESULTS: A total of 95 toddlers were randomized and 85 subsequently studied. The median percentage of time spent crying between insertion of the first needle and 30 seconds after the end of procedure in both groups was 81% (interquartile range=66%). There was no significant difference in crying time and FLACC scores between groups (P>0.05). When examining effects of sucrose for the younger toddlers (less than 24 mo of age) there was a reduction in crying time of 10% and a 1.2-point reduction in mean FLACC scores compared with the toddlers older than 24 months. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight that toddlers become highly distressed during venipuncture, despite the standard care of topical anesthetics. In addition, sucrose does not effectively reduce distress especially in the older group of toddlers.

Understanding culturally safe cancer survivorship care with inuit in an urban community.

Cancer is a leading cause of death among Inuit. A legacy of colonialism, residential schools, and systemic racism has eroded trust among Inuit and many do not receive culturally safe care. This study aimed to explore the meaning of culturally safe cancer survivorship care for Inuit, and barriers and facilitators to receiving it in an urban setting in Ontario Canada. As Inuit and Western researchers, we conducted a descriptive qualitative study. We held two focus groups (n = 27) with cancer survivors and family members, and semi-structured interviews (n = 7) with health providers. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.Three broad themes emerged as central to culturally safe care: access to traditional ways of life, communication, and family involvement. Family support, patient navigators, and designated spaces were facilitators; lack of support for traditional ways, like country food, was a barrier. Participants were clear what constituted culturally safe care, but major barriers exist. Lack of direction at institutional and governmental levels contributes to the complexity of issues that prevent Inuit from engaging in and receiving culturally safe cancer care. To understand how to transform healthcare to be culturally safe, studies underpinned by Inuit epistemology, values, and principles are required.

Which lives are worth saving? Biolegitimacy and harm reduction during COVID-19.

Despite the promise to save every life, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed social and racial inequalities, precarious living conditions, and engendered an exponential increase in overdose deaths. Although some lives are considered sacred, others are deliberately sacrificed. This article draws on the theoretical work of Foucault and scholars who further developed his concept of biopolitics. While biopolitics aims to ameliorate the health of populations, Foucault never systematically accounted for the unequal value of lives. In the name of saving the biological lives of people who use drugs (PWUD) during the pandemic, the harm reduction movement has emphasized the need for safe supply, decriminalization, and housing; governments have started implementing these measures, which were previously rejected as utopian and unrealistic. Paradoxically, the use of drugs itself, and therefore the increased risk of death from overdose or other medical sequelae, is the only way PWUD can achieve enough visibility to be recognized as a life worth saving. The humanitarian rationale of harm reduction concerns itself with the biological life and stipulates social and political rights in the name of its sacredness. This is what anthropologist Fassin and others called biolegitimacy-the recognition of life reduced to its physiological, biological essence.

A Parent-Targeted and Mediated Video Intervention to Improve Uptake of Pain Treatment for Infants During Newborn Screening: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Most newborns undergo newborn screening blood tests. Breastfeeding, skin-to-skin care, and sweet solutions effectively reduce pain; however, these strategies are inconsistently used. We conducted a 2-armed pilot randomized controlled trial in a mother-baby unit to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a parent-targeted and -mediated video demonstrating use of these pain-reducing strategies and to obtain preliminary effectiveness data on uptake of pain management. One hundred parent-newborn dyads were randomized to view the video or receive usual care (51 intervention and 49 control arm). Consent and attrition rates were 70% and 1%, respectively. All participants in the intervention arm received the intervention as planned and reported an intention to recommend the video and to use at least 1 pain treatment with breastfeeding or skin-to-skin care preferred over sucrose. In the intervention arm, 60% of newborns received at least 1 pain treatment compared with 67% in the control arm (absolute difference, -7%; 95% confidence interval, -26 to 12). The video was well accepted and feasible to show to parents. As there was no evidence of effect on the use of pain management, major modifications are required before launching a full-scale trial. Effective means to translate evidence-based pain knowledge is warranted.

Be Sweet to Babies During Painful Procedures: A Pilot Evaluation of a Parent-Targeted Video.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding (BF), skin-to-skin care (SSC), and sucrose effectively reduce babies' pain during newborn blood work, but these strategies are infrequently used. Our team developed a parent-targeted video intervention showing the effectiveness of the 3 pain management strategies. PURPOSE: To evaluate neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) parents' (1) baseline knowledge and previous use of BF, SSC, and sucrose for procedural pain management; (2) intention to advocate/use BF, SSC, or sucrose for their infants' future blood work after viewing the video; (3) intention to recommend the video to other parents; and (4) perceptions of the video and identify areas for improvement. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of parents in an NICU. RESULTS: Fifty parents were enrolled: 33 mothers and 17 fathers. More than two-thirds (68%) of parents had prior knowledge of analgesic effects of sucrose; knowledge of SSC and BF as pain-reduction strategies was lower: 44% and 34%, respectively. Eighty-six percent of parents felt the video was the right length; 7 (14%) felt the video was too long. After viewing the video, 96% of parents intended to advocate for BF, SSC, or sucrose for pain management and 88% parents would recommend the video to other parents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The video is acceptable to parents, is feasible to deliver to parents in an NICU, and has potential to increase parents' intent to advocate for pain management strategies for their infants. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness of this parent-targeted intervention on increasing actual use of pain management in clinical practice.

Pain Management During Newborn Screening: Using YouTube to Disseminate Effective Pain Management Strategies.

To assess the reach, acceptability, and effect of the BSweet2Babies video showing breast-feeding, skin-to-skin care, and sucrose during blood sampling on intention to recommend the video or advocate for use of the interventions. In July 2014, the video and an electronic survey were produced and posted. After 1 year, the online viewer survey responses and YouTube analytics were analyzed. One year after posting, the BSweet2Babies video had 10 879 views from 125 countries and 187 (1.7%) viewers completed the survey. Most respondents were aware of the analgesic effects of breast-feeding, skin-to-skin care, and sucrose. Nearly all respondents (n = 158, 92%) found the BSweet2Babies video to be a helpful resource and 146 (84%) answered that they would recommend the video to others. After viewing the video, 183 (98%) respondents answered that they would advocate for 1 or more of the interventions. The BSweet2Babies video showing effective pain treatment during blood sampling had a large reach but a very small response rate for the survey. Therefore, analysis of acceptability and effect on intention to recommend the video and advocate for the interventions depicted are limited. Further research is warranted to explore how to best evaluate videos delivered through social media and to determine the effect of the video to promote knowledge translation into clinical practice.

Sweet Solutions to Reduce Procedural Pain in Neonates: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Abundant evidence of sweet taste analgesia in neonates exists, yet placebo-controlled trials continue to be conducted. OBJECTIVE: To review all trials evaluating sweet solutions for analgesia in neonates and to conduct cumulative meta-analyses (CMAs) on behavioral pain outcomes. DATA SOURCES: (1) Data from 2 systematic reviews of sweet solutions for newborns; (2) searches ending 2015 of CINAHL, Medline, Embase, and psychINFO. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened studies for inclusion, conducted risk-of-bias ratings, and extracted behavioral outcome data for CMAs. CMA was performed using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-eight studies were included; 148 (88%) included placebo/no-treatment arms. CMA for crying time included 29 trials (1175 infants). From the fifth trial in 2002, there was a statistically significant reduction in mean cry time for sweet solutions compared with placebo (-27 seconds, 95% confidence interval [CI] -51 to -4). By the final trial, CMA was -23 seconds in favor of sweet solutions (95% CI -29 to -18). CMA for pain scores included 50 trials (3341 infants). Results were in favor of sweet solutions from the second trial (0.5, 95% CI -1 to -0.1). Final results showed a standardized mean difference of -0.9 (95% CI -1.1 to -0.7). LIMITATIONS: We were unable to use or obtain data from many studies to include in the CMA. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of sweet taste analgesia in neonates has existed since the first published trials, yet placebo/no-treatment, controlled trials have continued to be conducted. Future neonatal pain studies need to select more ethically responsible control groups.

Breastfeeding for procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show that breastfeeding newborn infants during painful procedures reduces pain. Mechanisms are considered to be multifactorial and include sucking, skin-to-skin contact, warmth, rocking, sound and smell of the mother, and possibly endogenous opiates present in the breast milk. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of breastfeeding on procedural pain in infants beyond the neonatal period (first 28 days of life) up to one year of age compared to no intervention, placebo, parental holding, skin-to-skin contact, expressed breast milk, formula milk, bottle feeding, sweet-tasting solutions (e.g. sucrose or glucose), distraction, or other interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to 18 February 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and CINAHL (EBSCO); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving infants aged 28 days postnatal to 12 months and receiving breastfeeding while undergoing a painful procedure. Comparators included, but were not limited to, oral administration of water, sweet-tasting solutions, expressed breast or formula milk, no intervention, use of pacifiers, positioning, cuddling, distraction, topical anaesthetics, and skin-to-skin care. Procedures included, but were not limited to: subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, venipuncture, intravenous line insertion, heel lance, and finger lance. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The main outcome measures were behavioural or physiological indicators and composite pain scores, as well as other clinically important outcomes reported by the authors of included studies. We pooled data for the most comparable outcomes and where data from at least two studies could be included. We used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), employing a random-effects model for continuous outcomes measured on the same scales. For continuous outcomes measured on different scales, we pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and associated 95% CIs. For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to pool events between groups across studies using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. However, as insufficient studies reported dichotomous outcomes, we did not pool such events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 1066 infants. All studies were conducted during early childhood immunisation. As the breastfeeding intervention cannot be blinded, we rated all studies as being at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We assessed nine studies as being at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. In addition, we rated nine studies as high risk for blinding of outcome assessment. We scored risk of bias related to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting as unclear for the majority of the studies due to lack of information.Our primary outcome was pain. Breastfeeding reduced behavioural pain responses (cry time and pain scores) during vaccination compared to no treatment, oral water, and other interventions such as cuddling, oral glucose, topical anaesthetic, massage, and vapocoolant. Breastfeeding did not consistently reduce changes in physiological indicators, such as heart rate. We pooled data for duration of cry from six studies (n = 547 infants). Breastfeeding compared to water or no treatment resulted in a 38-second reduction in cry time (MD -38, 95% CI -50 to -26; P < 0.00001). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE for this outcome was moderate, as most infants were 6 months or younger, and outcomes may be different for infants during their 12-month immunisation. We pooled data for pain scores from five studies (n = 310 infants). Breastfeeding was associated with a 1.7-point reduction in standardised pain scores (SMD -1.7, 95% CI -2.2 to -1.3); we considered this evidence to be of moderate quality as data were primarily from infants younger than 6 months of age. We could pool heart rate data following injections for only two studies (n = 186); we considered this evidence to be of low quality due to insufficient data. There were no differences between breastfeeding and control (MD -3.6, -23 to 16).Four of the 10 studies had more than two study arms. Breastfeeding was more effective in reducing crying duration or pain scores during vaccination compared to: 25% dextrose and topical anaesthetic cream (EMLA), vapocoolant, maternal cuddling, and massage.No included studies reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude, based on the 10 studies included in this review, that breastfeeding may help reduce pain during vaccination for infants beyond the neonatal period. Breastfeeding consistently reduced behavioural responses of cry duration and composite pain scores during and following vaccinations. However, there was no evidence that breastfeeding had an effect on physiological responses. No studies included in this review involved populations of hospitalised infants undergoing other skin-breaking procedures. Although it may be possible to extrapolate the review results to this population, further studies of efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability in this population are warranted.