Premium
Using the MEDiPORT humanoid robot to reduce procedural pain and distress in children with cancer: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Jibb Lindsay A.,
Birnie Kathryn A.,
Nathan Paul C.,
Beran Tanya N.,
Hum Vanessa,
Victor J. Charles,
Stinson Jennifer N.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pediatric blood and cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.116
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1545-5017
pISSN - 1545-5009
DOI - 10.1002/pbc.27242
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , distraction , physical therapy , distress , psychological intervention , physical medicine and rehabilitation , clinical psychology , nursing , surgery , neuroscience , biology
Background Subcutaneous port needle insertions are painful and distressing for children with cancer. The interactive MEDiPORT robot has been programmed to implement psychological strategies to decrease pain and distress during this procedure. This study assessed the feasibility of a future MEDiPORT trial. The secondary aim was to determine the preliminary effectiveness of MEDiPORT in reducing child pain and distress during subcutaneous port accesses. Methods This 5‐month pilot randomized controlled trial used a web‐based service to randomize 4‐ to 9‐year‐olds with cancer to the MEDiPORT cognitive‐behavioral arm (robot using evidence‐based cognitive‐behavioral interventions) or active distraction arm (robot dancing and singing) while a nurse conducted a needle insertion. We assessed accrual and retention; technical difficulties; outcome measure completion by children, parents, and nurses; time taken to complete the study and clinical procedure; and child‐, parent‐, and nurse‐rated acceptability. Descriptive analyses, with exploratory inferential testing of child pain and distress data, were used to address study aims. Results Forty children were randomized across study arms. Most (85%) eligible children participated and no children withdrew. Technical difficulties were more common in the cognitive‐behavioral arm. Completion times for the study and needle insertion were acceptable and >96% of outcome measure items were completed. Overall, MEDiPORT and the study were acceptable to participants. There was no difference in pain between arms, but distress during the procedure was less pronounced in the active distraction arm. Conclusion The MEDiPORT study appears feasible to implement as an adequately‐powered effectiveness‐assessing trial following modifications to the intervention and study protocol. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02611739.