Experimental study reduced pain perception in children during IV blood draws using balloon inflation, suggesting distraction techniques can enhance comfort.
Abstract Background: Intravenous (IV) blood collection is a common and often painful procedure for hospitalised children. Distraction techniques are non-pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing pain and anxiety during such procedures. This study evaluated the effectiveness of balloon inflation as an active distraction method to reduce pain perception during IV blood draws in children aged 6–12 years. Methods: A true experimental pre-test -post-test control group design was employed at a tertiary care hospital in Bhubaneswar, India. Eighty children were randomly assigned to an experimental group (balloon inflation during IV blood collection) or a control group (standard care without distraction). Pain was assessed immediately post-procedure using the validated FLACC behavioural pain scale. Demographic data and prior IV experience were recorded. Data were analysed using independent t-tests and chi-square tests, with effect size calculated by Cohen’s d. Results: The experimental group showed a significant reduction in mean FLACC scores compared to controls (1.43 ± 2.25 vs. 5.63 ± 2.99, p < 0.001), with 60% of children in the experimental group classified as relaxed and comfortable versus 10% in controls. Significant differences were observed across all FLACC subscales (face, legs, activity, cry, consolability). The effect size was large (Cohen’s d = 1.60), indicating a clinically meaningful reduction in pain behaviours. Conclusions: Balloon inflation is a simple, cost-effective, and effective distraction technique that significantly reduces pain perception in children undergoing IV blood collection. Integrating this method into paediatric nursing practice may improve the procedural experience and reduce anxiety. Further research is warranted to compare this technique with other distraction methods and assess long-term outcomes. Clinical trial number Not applicable. This true experimental pre–test–post–test control group study was not registered in a clinical trial registry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pradhan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: