PrintDownload PDFGet Adobe ReaderDownload to WordDownload as HTMLDownload as XMLCitation Manager
Save to Favorites
Guideline Summary
Guideline Title
Best evidence statement (BESt). Promoting positive coping and mastery through the use of rewards or praise.
Bibliographic Source(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Promoting positive coping and mastery through the use of rewards or praise. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2012 Jan 18. 7 p. [9 references]
Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Scope

Disease/Condition(s)

Pediatric conditions that may cause children to undergo stressful healthcare experience

Guideline Category
Treatment
Clinical Specialty
Family Practice
Pediatrics
Intended Users
Advanced Practice Nurses
Nurses
Physician Assistants
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)

To evaluate among pediatric patients if the use of praise versus rewards improves behavior and coping during a stressful healthcare experience

Target Population

Pediatric patients undergoing a stressful healthcare experience

Interventions and Practices Considered

Systematic and planned use of incentives (praise or reward) during stressful medical experiences

Major Outcomes Considered

Behavior and coping during a stressful healthcare experience

Methodology

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Search Strategy

  • Terms: children, pediatric, praise, reward, incentive, behavior, coping, distress, anxiety, motivation, healthcare, medical patients, prize
  • Databases: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Google Scholar
  • Date range: Limited to articles printed between the years of 1980 through 2011
  • Last search: 10/6/11
Number of Source Documents

Not stated

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

Table of Evidence Levels

Quality Level Definition
1a or 1b Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies
2a or 2b Best study design for domain
3a or 3b Fair study design for domain
4a or 4b Weak study design for domain
5a or 5b General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline
5 Local consensus

a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Not stated

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Not stated

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

Table of Recommendation Strength

Strength Definition
It is strongly recommended that…
It is strongly recommended that… not…
There is consensus that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or vice versa for negative recommendations).
It is recommended that…
It is recommended that… not…
There is consensus that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens.
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…

Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.

Cost Analysis

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

Method of Guideline Validation
Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation

This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by 2 independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.

Recommendations

Major Recommendations

The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1a‒5b) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

It is recommended that the use of an incentive, whether praise or reward, be used in a systematic and planned manner in order to positively affect behavior and coping in children undergoing a stressful medical experience (Jay et al., 1987 [2a]; Manne et al., 1994 [2b]; Manne et al., 1990 [3b]; Allen & Stokes, 1987 [4a]; Slifer, Bucholtz, & Cataldo 1994 [4b]).

Note 1: Using praise as part of a systematic approach during a healthcare experience is most effective in affecting behavior when given to children in specific, contingent ways (e.g., "You are doing a great job at holding your arm still") rather than nonspecific, unlabeled praise (e.g., "You are doing a good job") (Manne et al., 1994 [2b]; Gelfand & Dahlquist, 2003 [4a]; Manne et al., 1992 [4a]; Pringle et al., 2001 [4b]).

Note 2: Using praise or reward is most effective when a healthcare professional has a conversation with the child prior to the stressful healthcare experience to communicate: 1) the praise or reward system being used, and 2) the desired and expected behaviors of the child during the healthcare encounter (Jay et al., 1987 [2a]; Manne et al., 1994 [2b]; Manne et al., 1990 [3b]; Allen & Stokes, 1987 [4a]; Slifer, Bucholtz, & Cataldo 1994 [4b]).

Definitions:

Table of Evidence Levels

Quality Level Definition
1a or 1b Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies
2a or 2b Best study design for domain
3a or 3b Fair study design for domain
4a or 4b Weak study design for domain
5a or 5b General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline
5 Local consensus

a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Table of Recommendation Strength

Strength Definition
It is strongly recommended that…
It is strongly recommended that… not…
There is consensus that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or vice versa for negative recommendations).
It is recommended that…
It is recommended that… not…
There is consensus that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens.
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…

Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.

Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

References Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

Improved behavior and coping during a stressful healthcare experience

Potential Harms

Not stated

Qualifying Statements

Qualifying Statements

This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.

Implementation of the Guideline

Description of Implementation Strategy

An implementation strategy was not provided.

Implementation Tools
Audit Criteria/Indicators
For information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories

IOM Care Need
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness

Identifying Information and Availability

Bibliographic Source(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Promoting positive coping and mastery through the use of rewards or praise. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2012 Jan 18. 7 p. [9 references]
Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Date Released
2012 Jan 18
Guideline Developer(s)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center - Hospital/Medical Center
Source(s) of Funding

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

Guideline Committee

Not stated

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

Group/Team Members: Cheryl Murray-Miyamasu, MA, CCLS, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Child Life and Integrative Care, Outpatient Specialty Clinics

Support/Consultant: Patti Besuner, RN, MN, CNS, Evidence-Based Practice Mentor, Center for Professional Excellence

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

No financial conflicts of interest were found.

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site External Web Site Policy.

Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.

Availability of Companion Documents

The following are available:

Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.

In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document External Web Site Policy.

Patient Resources

None available

NGC Status

This NGC summary was updated by ECRI Institute on May 8, 2012.

Copyright Statement

This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:

Copies of this Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) External Web Site Policy Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of the BESt include the following:

  • Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization's process for developing and implementing evidence based care
  • Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization's website
  • The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents
  • Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care

Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked by the organization is appreciated.

Disclaimer

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

Read full disclaimer...