Pain and tactile stimuli during arterial puncture in preterm neonates

The purpose of this study was to assess the behavioral and physiological reactivity of preterm neonates during different phases of a blood collection procedure involving arterial puncture. The sample consisted of 43 preterm and very low birth weight neonates with a postnatal age of 1 to 21 days who were hospitalized in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The neonates were evaluated during the whole blood collection procedure. The assessment was divided into five consecutive phases: Baseline (BL); Antispsis (A), covering the period of handling of the neonate for antisepsis prior to puncture; Puncture (P): Recovery-Dressing (RD), covering the period of handling of the neonate for dressing until positioning for rest in the isolette; and Recovery-Resting (RR). Facial activity was videotaped and analyzed using the National Facial Coding System (NFCS). The sleep-wake state and heart rate were registered at the bedside. There was a significant increases in NFCS score and heart rate, and more active behavior during phases A, P, and RD relative to BL. Regarding the tactile stimulation of the infant in pre-puncture (A) and post-puncture (RD), it was observed increased NFCS score, heart rate, and active behavior in comparison to the BL an BR phases. There was evidence of distress responses immediately before and after a painful event, quite apart form the pain reaction to the puncture procedure. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain.

Evaluation of short dietary questions from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey

Six of the short dietary questions used in the 1995 National Nutrition Survey (see box below) were evaluated for relative validity both directly and indirectly and for consistency, by documenting the differences in mean intakes of foods and nutrients as measured on the 24-hour recall, between groups with different responses to the short questions. 1. Including snacks, how many times do you usually have something to eat in a day including evenings? 2. How many days per week do you usually have something to eat for breakfast? 3. In the last 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more? 4. What type of milk do you usually consume? 5. How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1/2 cup cooked vegetables or 1 cup of salad vegetables) 6. How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? (a serve = 1 medium piece or 2 small pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces) These comparisons were made for males and females overall and for population sub-groups of interest including: age, socio-economic disadvantage, region of residence, country of birth, and BMI category. Several limitations to this evaluation of the short questions, as discussed in the report, need to be kept in mind including: · The method for comparison available (24-hour recall) was not ideal (gold standard); as it measures yesterday’s intake. This limitation was overcome by examining only mean differences between groups of respondents, since mean intake for a group can provide a reasonable approximation for ‘usual’ intake. · The need to define and identify, post-hoc, from the 24-hour recall the number of eating occasions, and occasions identified by the respondents as breakfast. · Predetermined response categories for some of the questions effectively limited the number of categories available for evaluation. · Other foods and nutrients, not selected for this evaluation, may have an indirect relationship with the question, and might have shown stronger and more consistent responses. · The number of responses in some categories of the short questions eg for food security may have been too small to detect significant differences between population sub-groups. · No information was available to examine the validity of these questions for detecting differences over time (establishing trends) in food habits and indicators of selected nutrient intakes. By contrast, the strength of this evaluation was its very large sample size, (atypical of most validation studies of dietary assessment) and thus, the opportunity to investigate question performance in a range of broad population sub-groups compared with a well-conducted, quantified survey of intakes. The results of the evaluation are summarised below for each of the questions and specific recommendations for future testing, modifications and use provided for each question. The report concludes with some general recommendations for the further development and evaluation of short dietary questions.