ArticleJournal for specialists in pediatric nursing : JSPN2026
The Use of Extended Reality Distraction Methods During Needle-Related Procedures in Pediatric Hospital Care-Children's Experiences.
Article in Journal for specialists in pediatric nursing : JSPN, 2026. 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.
- Parents' Perspectives on XR Distraction During Pediatric Needle Procedures.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Article
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
purposeTo describe children's experiences of using extended reality (XR) distraction, namely virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), during needle-related procedures. DESIGN AND
methodsAn exploratory, prospective convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed. Self-reported measures and structured observations conducted in accordance with a predefined protocol were combined with semi-structured interviews. Data were presented using descriptive statistics and synthesized through thematic analysis.
resultsObservations were conducted during 29 venipunctures in children using XR distraction. A majority of the children (90%) reported positive experiences with the use of XR distraction. Numerical Rating Scale pain scores (0-10) were low in both groups, with a mean of 1.26 (SD 1.16) for VR and 1.77 (SD 1.79) for AR. Most procedures (62%) were carried out as planned. No child declined the use of the device. Physical restraint was not observed; however, supportive holding was used in 10% of procedures. Four themes were identified through the interviews: Emotional support and comfort, The artificial world becomes reality, A diversified experience, and Usability aspects influencing user experience.
conclusionWhen appropriately implemented, XR distraction may reduce pain and anxiety among children during needle-related procedures. However, it is not universally effective, underscoring the importance of a child-centered approach that allows children to select their preferred distraction method. Further research is required to determine optimal implementation strategies, assess cost-effectiveness, and clarify the role of XR distraction in delivering high-quality pediatric care during needle-related procedures. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The demonstrated benefits of XR distraction during needle-related procedures may encourage healthcare professionals to incorporate such tools into clinical practice. Nevertheless, the findings also emphasize the importance of adopting a child-centered approach, recognizing that XR distraction is not suitable for all children.
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.