ArticleJMIR serious games2025
Factors Influencing Virtual Reality as a Distraction Tool for Venipuncture in Children: Observational Pilot Feasibility Study.
Article in JMIR serious games, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly used as a distraction tool for painful procedures in children. Studies have shown variable benefit but have not identified factors to maximize utility. Objective: This study aimed to undertake a feasibility study to investigate factors influencing virtual reality headset (VRH) utility for venipuncture and cannulation. Methods: Children admitted as inpatients were recruited and given a VRH during anticipated venipuncture or cannulation. Feedback from participants, parents, and operators was obtained through questionnaires and the Wong-Baker Faces Scale (WBFS). Results: Thirteen children of a target 32 (41%), aged a median of 7 (range 5-12) years, were recruited to the study; 9 (69%) parents and 7 (54%) participants reported a positive VR experience, found VRH comfortable, and wanted repeat application for future venisection or cannulation. However, patient recruitment was suboptimal at 41% (binomial 95% CI 24%-59%) of the target, as busy operators undertaking venisection or cannulation on eligible patients were unable to spare time for VRH use during the COVID-19 pandemic. The preprocedure time spent with VRH was associated with participants' positive experience of VR distraction (median 15, IQR 2.5-50 vs 180, IQR 120-450) seconds (P=.02). Five (38.4%) participants removed the VRH prior to procedure; these were relatively young compared to those who continued VRH (median 6, IQR 5.00-7.00 vs 10, IQR 6.75-12.00 years), suggesting better acceptance of VR in older children. There was no significant difference in WBFS pain ratings before (median 0, IQR 0-10) or after the procedure (median 0, IQR 0-6), with many children choosing 0 ("no hurt") at initial assessment. By contrast, parent and doctor or phlebotomist responses indicated that VR reduced pain and anxiety (n=9, 69%), in agreement with participant perception (n=7, 54%; Cohen κ=0.68). Conclusions: VR as a distraction tool in children is influenced by age and preprocedure familiarity, suggesting that the optimal use is in older children with greater cognitive and emotional maturity. Multidimensional feedback from participants, parents, and investigators should be obtained to test the true efficacy of VR in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.