The Facial Affective Scale (FAS) as a predictor for pain unpleasantness when children undergo immunizations

Needle fear is a common problem in children undergoing immunization. To ensure that the individual child’s needs are met during a painful procedure it would be beneficial to be able to predict whether there is a need for extra support. The self-reporting instrument facial affective scale (FAS) could have potential for this purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the FAS can predict pain unpleasantness in girls undergoing immunization. Girls, aged 11-12 years, reported their expected pain unpleasantness on the FAS at least two weeks before and then experienced pain unpleasantness immediately before each vaccination. The experienced pain unpleasantness during the vaccination was also reported immediately after each immunization. The level of anxiety was similarly assessed during each vaccination and supplemented with stress measures in relation to the procedure in order to assess and evaluate concurrent validity. The results show that the FAS is valid to predict pain unpleasantness in 11-12-year-old girls who undergo immunizations and that it has the potential to be a feasible instrument to identify children who are in need of extra support to cope with immunization. In conclusion, the FAS measurement can facilitate caring interventions.

Too Many Bad Cooks Spoiling the Broth? Effectiveness of NGOs in Addressing Child Labour in El Salvador

The reaction of the first world to the persevering plight of a large part of the third world varies. In response to the sometimes glaring disparities, many international organizations and multinational corporations have recently adopted a pro-development rhetoric with relation to the problem of global poverty. However, the rhetoric rarely translates into action. As David Bacon discusses, leaders of corporations and organizations now tend to conclude their speeches by expressing a desire to reduce the suffering of the third world. However, when it comes to agreeing on specific concessions that could indeed improve the world-wide economic situation, first world countries are reluctant to act. A good example of this type of behavior is the current negotiation of the WTO, the “development round of Doha,” in which the United States along with the European Union pressure countries of the developing South to open up their markets, while at the same time refusing to remove or even decrease their own agricultural subsidies. The first world civil society observes the behavior of international organizations and western based multinational corporations as ineffectual. Taking the matter in its own hands, especially in the past couple of decades, this civil society has created a countless number of development-oriented nongovernmental organizations. These are supposed to compensate for the lack of action by international organizations. Development NGOs are believed to be more locally responsive as well as free of business or political considerations in choosing their strategies, and thus generally more efficient than IOs. However, if they really were how they are alleged to be, the problems of the third world would already be ameliorated by a significant amount, if not completely eradicated. Do development-NGOs indeed possess the characteristics that they claim to possess? What is their real affect on human rights? And how effective are they in their work?