Original ContributionEfficacy of ShotBlocker in reducing pediatric pain associated with intramuscular injections☆
Introduction
Intramuscular (IM) injections are a common painful part of routine health care and pediatric emergency department (ED) visits. Current recommended immunization schedules require children to receive up to 20 separate injections before reaching 2 years of age, depending on the combination of vaccines used [1]. In 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pain Society jointly released a policy statement addressing pediatric pain. This statement acknowledged that children's pain is often inadequately controlled and provided recommendations for minimizing pediatric procedural pain. Proposed reasons for pediatric oligoanalgesia include a general misunderstanding of pediatric pain, time constraints in a busy ED or office, health care provider lack of knowledge of children's developmental stages and pain awareness, and concerns about using prophylactic or therapeutic pharmacologic treatments in children [2].
The ramifications of insufficient pain control in children extend beyond the immediate painful encounter. Pediatric and parental anxiety regarding painful procedures has been demonstrated to detract from other aspects of the health care visit. In 2007, an evidenced-based review of pain reduction during pediatric immunizations noted that children and parents have substantial concerns about the pain associated with injections. Children's anxiety about injections often detracted from other important aspects of the visit such as anticipatory guidance and health care instructions, and parental anxiety adversely affected compliance with their children's medical care [1].
Interventions would ideally be inexpensive, noninvasive, and rapidly applied to improve pediatric pain control. One device that is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration but is undergoing testing is the ShotBlocker (Bionix, Toledo, Ohio), a drug-free plastic device that is pressed against the skin during injection. It requires no advance preparation or wait time and has no known side effects. The ShotBlocker has a number of short blunt contact points on the underside that are placed directly on the skin before injection with a central hole for administering the injection (Fig. 1A and B). These points do not puncture the skin and provide the stimulus for the gate theory, a pain pathway postulated by Melzack and Wall [3], [4]. They theorized that both large-and small-diameter peripheral nerve fibers carry pain and pressure stimuli to the central nervous system where a gate mechanism modulates the pain signal [3], [4]. The proposed mechanism of action of the ShotBlocker is that the application of pressure to the skin excites the smaller-diameter, faster fibers. This stimulation closes the gates to the central nervous system, temporarily blocking the slower pain signals of the injection. In theory, this simple, noninvasive device should decrease the pain associated with IM injections. To our knowledge, this device has not yet been formally tested in a large sample of pediatric patients. We hypothesized that the use of the ShotBlocker as compared to standard of care (no intervention) would decrease pediatric pain as measured by validated pediatric pain scales.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The objective of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to measure the efficacy of the ShotBlocker in a convenience sample of children receiving IM injections as part of their medical care. This study was approved by the Cooper University Hospital institutional review board, and informed written consent was required of all caregivers. Subject assent was additionally required of children aged 12 to 17 years.
Results
Over a 13-month period, 185 children were eligible and 165 children were enrolled, 64 of whom were old enough to provide pain scores. A flow diagram illustrating participant enrollment and group allocation is shown in Fig. 2. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups, including previous immunization history and caregiver-perceived pain with the most recent immunization. With this immunization, most children (92%) presented for a routine well child visit or
Discussion
In the United States, children receive as many as 5 immunizations at each well child visit and a total of 26 by their 6th year [7]. Given the large number of injections administered to children, pain and anxiety levels are high and have been found to detract from routine care [1]. In a study examining routine pediatric immunization practices, investigators determined that 58% of physicians did not provide children with any topical or oral pain relief [8]. Similar rates for the management of
References (33)
Selling comfort: a survey of interventions for needle procedures in a pediatric hospital
Pain Manag Nurs
(2004)- et al.
Use of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for vaccination pain in infants
J Pediatr
(1994) - et al.
Hyperpigmentation following the use of EMLA cream
Br J Plast Surg
(2001) - et al.
Contact allergy and cross reactions caused by prilocaine
Am J Contact Dermat
(1997) - et al.
Inverse relationship between age dependent erythrocyte activity of methaemoglobin reductase and prilocaine induced methaemogloinaemia during infancy
Br J Anaesth
(1990) - et al.
The use of topical refrigerant anesthetic to reduce injection pain in children
J Pain Symptom Manage
(1995) - et al.
Pain reduction during pediatric immunizations: evidence based review and recommendations
Pediatrics
(2007) The assessment and management of acute pain in infants, children, adolescents
Pediatrics
(2001)- et al.
Pain mechanisms: a new Theory
Science
(1965) - et al.
On nature of cutaneous sensory mechanisms
Brain
(1962)
Research randomizer (Version 3.0)
Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales
Pediatr Nurs
Routine immunization practices: use of topical anesthetics and oral analgesics
Pediatrics
Current trends in the management of common painful conditions of preschool children in United States pediatric emergency departments
Clin Pediatr(Phila)
Topical local anesthetics: two products for pain relief during minor procedures
AJN
Cited by (32)
The effects of vibration and pressure interventions on children's pain, fear and anxiety: A randomized controlled trial
2024, Journal of Pediatric NursingEffects of applications manual pressure and shotblocker to reduce needle-related pain and fear in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus
2023, Journal of Pediatric NursingMassaging as a pain-relieving intervention before performing intravenous access
2023, Applied Nursing ResearchA Comparison of Two Different Tactile Stimulus Methods on Reducing Pain of Children During Intramuscular Injection: A Randomized Controlled Study
2022, Journal of Emergency NursingCitation Excerpt :ShotBlocker’s mechanism of action is that the pressure the blunt protrusions exert on the skin stimulates faster nerve cells (in terms of their traveling speed) that are smaller in diameter. This stimulus temporarily blocks pain signals by closing the gates to the central nervous system and thus reducing the amount of perceived pain experienced during injection.11,24,25 The injection was administered by the same volunteer clinical nurse to all children involved in the study.
Effectiveness of mechano-analgesia and cold application on ecchymosis, pain, and patient satisfaction associated with subcutaneous heparin injection
2020, Journal of Vascular NursingCitation Excerpt :This stimulation reduces the pain from the needle by putting pressure on large-diameter (A beta) fibers, thus blocking pain transmission along small diameters (A delta and C) fibers.27,28 Studies showed that ShotBlocker could be effective for reducing intramuscular injection pain.23,28–30 No studies in the literature have evaluated the effectiveness of ShotBlocker for reducing SC heparin injection pain.
Examining the effect of “Shotblocker” in relieving pain associated with intramuscular injection
2019, Complementary Therapies in MedicineCitation Excerpt :In the study by Çelik & Khorshid16, the mean score for the pain level (determined by VAS) felt by the patients was 7.85 ± 7.03 in the administration group, 20.3 ± 14.39 in the placebo group, and 26.7 ± 20.30 mm in the control group, and this difference was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.000 < 0.05) 16. In the study by Susilawati et al., 15, the Pain-away tool was evaluated and the pain levels of the groups were measured using the DAN scale. The pain mean scores of the experimental and control groups were 5 and 7, respectively, thus indicating that the Pain-away reduced injection-related pain.15
- ☆
This study was presented at the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, Chicago, IL in May 2007.