Pain management in infant immunisation: A cross-sectional survey of UK primary care nurses.

Annie P Mabbott, Helen Bedford
{"title":"Pain management in infant immunisation: A cross-sectional survey of UK primary care nurses.","authors":"Annie P Mabbott, Helen Bedford","doi":"10.1017/S146342362300066X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Childhood immunisation is a critically important public health initiative. However, since most vaccines are administered by injection, it is associated with considerable pain and distress. Despite evidence demonstrating the efficacy of various pain management strategies, the frequency with which these are used during routine infant vaccinations in UK practice is unknown.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to explore primary care practice nurses' (PNs) use of evidence-based pain management strategies during infant immunisation, as well as barriers to evidence-based practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire was developed and distributed to nurses throughout the UK via convenience sampling in paper and online formats. Questions assessed the frequency of pain management intervention use during infant immunisation and barriers to their use.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 255 questionnaire responses were received. Over 90% (<i>n</i> = 226) of respondents never used topical anaesthetics or sweet solutions during immunisations, while 41.9% advised breastfeeding occasionally (<i>n =</i> 103). Parent-/caregiver-led distraction was the most frequently used intervention, with most nurses using it occasionally (47.9%, <i>n =</i> 116) or often (30.6%, <i>n =</i> 74). Most practices had no immunisation pain management policy (81.1%, <i>n =</i> 184), and most PNs' previous training had not included pain management (86.9%, <i>n =</i> 186). Barriers to intervention use included lack of time, knowledge and resources. Excluding distraction, pain management strategies were infrequently or never used during infant immunisation. Key barriers to using evidence-based strategies were lack of time, knowledge and resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"24 ","pages":"e71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790675/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S146342362300066X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Childhood immunisation is a critically important public health initiative. However, since most vaccines are administered by injection, it is associated with considerable pain and distress. Despite evidence demonstrating the efficacy of various pain management strategies, the frequency with which these are used during routine infant vaccinations in UK practice is unknown.

Aim: This study aimed to explore primary care practice nurses' (PNs) use of evidence-based pain management strategies during infant immunisation, as well as barriers to evidence-based practice.

Methods: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to nurses throughout the UK via convenience sampling in paper and online formats. Questions assessed the frequency of pain management intervention use during infant immunisation and barriers to their use.

Findings: A total of 255 questionnaire responses were received. Over 90% (n = 226) of respondents never used topical anaesthetics or sweet solutions during immunisations, while 41.9% advised breastfeeding occasionally (n = 103). Parent-/caregiver-led distraction was the most frequently used intervention, with most nurses using it occasionally (47.9%, n = 116) or often (30.6%, n = 74). Most practices had no immunisation pain management policy (81.1%, n = 184), and most PNs' previous training had not included pain management (86.9%, n = 186). Barriers to intervention use included lack of time, knowledge and resources. Excluding distraction, pain management strategies were infrequently or never used during infant immunisation. Key barriers to using evidence-based strategies were lack of time, knowledge and resources.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
婴儿免疫接种中的疼痛管理:英国初级保健护士横断面调查。
背景:儿童免疫接种是一项极其重要的公共卫生举措。然而,由于大多数疫苗都是通过注射方式接种的,因此会带来相当大的疼痛和痛苦。目的:本研究旨在探讨初级保健执业护士(PNs)在婴儿免疫接种过程中使用循证疼痛管理策略的情况,以及循证实践的障碍:方法:我们编制了一份调查问卷,并通过纸质和在线形式向全英国的护士发放。调查问题包括在婴儿免疫接种过程中使用止痛干预措施的频率以及使用这些措施的障碍:共收到 255 份问卷回复。超过 90% 的受访者(n = 226)在免疫接种过程中从未使用过局部麻醉剂或甜味溶液,41.9% 的受访者偶尔建议母乳喂养(n = 103)。家长/护理人员引导分散注意力是最常用的干预措施,大多数护士偶尔使用(47.9%,n = 116)或经常使用(30.6%,n = 74)。大多数诊所没有免疫接种疼痛管理政策(81.1%,n = 184),大多数护士以前接受的培训不包括疼痛管理(86.9%,n = 186)。使用干预措施的障碍包括缺乏时间、知识和资源。除分散注意力外,婴儿免疫接种过程中很少或从未使用过疼痛管理策略。使用循证策略的主要障碍是缺乏时间、知识和资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Healthy ageing in long-term care? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper. Early structured communication between general practitioner, sick-listed patient, and employer: Results and lessons learned from a pragmatic trial in the Capacity Note project. The impact of COVID-19 on referrals among general practitioners and specialists in Shanghai, China. The unrevealed links: periodontal health, human milk composition, and infant gut microbiome dynamics. Primary healthcare as a strategy for eliminating hepatitis C: the METRIC toolkit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1