• Pain at the time of vaccine injection is a common concern and contributes to vaccine hesitancy across the lifespan.• Evidence-based and feasible interventions are available to mitigate pain and are part of good vaccination clinical practice.• This guideline includes recommendations for pain mitigation based on five domains of pain management interventions (procedural, physical, pharmacologic, psychological and process): the "5P" approach.

No abstract

Key points• Vaccine injections performed in childhood are a substantial source of distress.• Untreated pain can have long-term consequences, including preprocedural anxiety, hyperalgesia, needle fears and avoidance of health care.• Simple, cost-effective, evidence-based pain-relieving strategies are available.• A "3-P" approach, combining pharmacologic, physical and psychological factors, improves pain relief.

Needle fear typically begins in childhood and represents an important health-related issue across the lifespan. Individuals who are highly fearful of needles frequently avoid health care. Although guidance exists for managing needle pain and fear during procedures, the most highly fearful may refuse or abstain from such procedures. The purpose of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide actionable instruction on the management of a particular health concern; this guidance emerges from a systematic process. Using evidence from a rigorous systematic review interpreted by an expert panel, this CPG provides recommendations on exposure-based interventions for high levels of needle fear in children and adults. The AGREE-II, GRADE, and Cochrane methodologies were used. Exposure-based interventions were included. The included evidence was very low quality on average. Strong recommendations include the following. In vivo (live/in person) exposure-based therapy is recommended (vs. no treatment) for children seven years and older and adults with high levels of needle fear. Non- in vivo (imaginal, computer-based) exposure (vs. no treatment) is recommended for individuals (over seven years of age) who are unwilling to undergo in vivo exposure. Although there were no included trials which examined children < 7 years, exposure-based interventions are discussed as good clinical practice. Implementation considerations are discussed and clinical tools are provided. Utilization of these recommended practices may lead to improved health outcomes due to better health care compliance. Research on the understanding and treatment of high levels of needle fear is urgently needed; specific recommendations are provided.

This article reviews the literature related to the epidemiology, prevention and management of sharps injuries in health care workers, particularly nurses, and the subsequent risk of harm. The studies are reviewed chronologically, beginning with the efforts to reduce sharps injuries by changing behaviours, followed by the introduction of barriers to protect the caregiver, and finally, the engineering of safer products. Initial efforts to prevent sharps injuries focused on placing rigid, disposal containers at the site where sharps were used and instructing health care workers to refrain form the practice of recapping. When these interventions were shown to alter the type, but not the overall number, of sharps injuries, alternative measures were sought. This search intensified with the increasing evidence of the small, but measurable, risk of the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus from sharps injuries. The current knowledge of the factors related to sharps injuries has been collected primarily through retrospective surveillance. This surveillance has been conducted primarily in hospital settings and has focused on the type of sharp and the purpose for which it was used rather than prospective research. Research is now needed to elucidate the organizational and behavioural factors leading to sharps injury both within the hospital as well as other health care settings. The implications for nursing practice are discussed.