ABSTRACT
Many people have negative experiences with vaccination due to stress-related reactions including fear and pain. We used a pre-post study design to evaluate the impact of implementing a modified version of the CARD (Comfort-Ask-Relax-Distract) system on stress-related reactions in individuals aged 12 y or older undergoing COVID-19 vaccinations in mass vaccination clinics. Vaccine recipients reported their level of pain, fear and dizziness during vaccination. Clinic staff reported their attitudes about CARD and use of CARD interventions. CARD improved client symptoms across genders and ages with an average reduction in needle pain, fear and dizziness of 75%, 40% and 44%, respectively. CARD was more effective in younger individuals. Clinic staff reported positive attitudes about CARD and uptake of selected CARD interventions. In summary, the modified CARD system reduced stress-related responses in a general population undergoing COVID-19 vaccinations in a mass vaccination clinic, was feasible and acceptable to staff. Future implementation efforts are recommended that include more diverse cultural contexts and incorporate education of individuals about CARD ahead of time.
Introduction
Vaccines protect individuals and populations against morbidity and mortality caused by infectious diseases.Citation1 At present, most vaccines are administered by needle injection.Citation2 This administration method is stressful for many vaccine recipients because of concerns about associated fear and pain.Citation3–7 Across the lifespan, a significant percentage of individuals report being afraid of needles.Citation3 One large study found a prevalence rate of needle fear of 63% in children and 24% in adults. Needle fear contributed to vaccination noncompliance in 8% of children and 7% of adults, respectively.Citation8 Having a fear of needles can therefore undermine the effectiveness of immunization programs.Citation3,Citation8,Citation9
To date, strategies aimed at improving vaccination uptake have overlooked addressing concerns about needle fear and associated immunization stress-related responses (ISRR),Citation10 including pain, dizziness and fainting. A plethora of evidence-based strategies exist to mitigate such adverse reactions to vaccination across the lifespan, and they have been summarized in a clinical practice guideline on this topic.Citation11 Examples include procedural techniques such as fast injections without aspiration, and psychological techniques such as distraction.Citation11 Although most techniques are cost neutral, they must be integrated in the vaccination delivery system to be effective.
In foundational work leading up to this study, a vaccination delivery framework called the CARD (Comfort Ask Relax Distract) system was developed to facilitate uptake of evidence-based strategies into practice.Citation12 CARD systematically integrates strategies from the guideline into vaccination planning and delivery activities, and includes changes to three domains: the environment (e.g., minimizing visual cues that elicit fear, such as needles), education of providers and individuals undergoing vaccination (e.g., pamphlets and posters that educate about coping strategies in each of the letter categories of the C-A-R-D acronym), and provider–client interactions (e.g., inviting participation of individuals in the vaccination process and supporting them with their preferred coping strategies). CARD was demonstrated to reduce ISRR when implemented in school-based vaccinations.Citation13,Citation14
To our knowledge, there are no studies that have integrated the CARD approach into a mass vaccination clinic outside of the school setting and evaluated impact on ISRR. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to examine implementation of CARD in the general public undergoing vaccination at mass vaccination clinics. In the present study, we adapted CARD for vaccine recipients aged 12 y and older who were receiving COVID-19 vaccinations in a mass vaccination clinic in Southwestern Ontario. The objectives were to determine feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability in a real-world setting where there was limited access to resources and clientele could not be educated ahead of time. This contrasts with our initial work, which also included implementation support and education of vaccine recipients prior to vaccination. The current approach reflects the constraints that were present in the COVID-19 pandemic context.
Materials and methods
Study design and setting
We used a quasi-experimental pre- (baseline) and post- (CARD) implementation study design. Approval was granted from the University of Waterloo ethics committee (ORE 43288). The intervention was implemented at the COVID-19 mass vaccination clinic run by a large team-based primary care health clinic in partnership with the School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo. The clinic was set up as one of the three mass vaccination clinics in a region with a population of 600,000.Citation15 It had a maximum capacity of 800–1000 vaccinations per day and ran between March and August 2021. The clinic only administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and used provincial eligibility criteria. At the time of the study, the focus of the clinic was on the first two doses of the vaccine series that were to be administered, as early as 21 d apart but at a recommended interval of 8 weeks.Citation16 During the study period, the clinic was open to all members of the public aged 12 y and older. The clinic staff included many different team members with responsibilities to direct flow, vaccinate, and provide client and staff support. Team leads included the physician lead, responsible for providing recovery support and special assessments; the nurse lead, responsible for clinic flow; and the pharmacist lead, responsible for the safe preparation of doses. Vaccinating staff included nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and healthcare trainees. Volunteers and intake staff were responsible for general clinic support, check-in, post-vaccination recovery monitoring, and checkout.
Clinic setting, layout and flow
The setting was in the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy building. The physical layout featured a waiting area outside of the building, a screening area, a large lecture theater modified for client check-in and another lecture theater adapted to include seven vaccination stations. In addition, two small study rooms were used as private vaccination stations. A third large lecture hall and a café area provided observation waiting rooms for the 15-minute post-vaccination mandated by the provincial vaccination program. A third small study room was adapted as a medical recovery space with monitored medical beds and first aid supplies for vaccine recipients experiencing an adverse reaction. After the recovery time elapsed, vaccine recipients were directed to the exit where they were assisted in finalizing paperwork, booking the next dose (if applicable), and receiving their vaccination certificate. Throughout the process, volunteers directed clientele through the different stations until exiting the clinic. There were no specific strategies or resources available for either staff or vaccine recipients to address ISRR.
Overview of the CARD system
The CARD system was reviewed for interventions that could be adapted for use.Citation12,Citation17 There are two main time periods, or phases, relative to vaccination in which CARD interventions are recommended. The first is the preparation and planning period prior to vaccination while the second is on the day of vaccination. The first phase involves educating vaccinators about CARD, ensuring the clinic space is adequate, and educating vaccine recipients and other important stakeholder groups such as parents/guardians. Through training sessions, such as half-day workshops, vaccinators learn about the rationale for CARD and the specific interventions they can implement.Citation13 Vaccine recipients can be educated by vaccinators. Resources can also be accessed online (via websites from reputable sources such as Immunize Canada).
The second phase involves ensuring the clinic space set up and flow incorporate interventions to minimize stress-related reactions. During vaccine administration, vaccinators use language and behaviors that foster a positive and calm environment and incorporate client-selected coping strategies throughout the procedure. They also use injection techniques that minimize fear and pain.
Modified CARD intervention
Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic context, clinic managers determined that a modified version of the CARD system could be implemented. The vaccinator education consisted of electronic dissemination of CARD resources, including a CARD poster and health-care provider checklist rather than a workshop session. At the start of each vaccination shift for the first week following implementation, the clinic pharmacy lead team member briefly reviewed the material in a 10-minute pre-shift huddle with vaccinators. CARD posters were hung in various places for clients to review and to serve as a visual distraction. This included the pre-vaccination area, vaccination rooms, and post-vaccination (recovery) areas. The CARD resources that were used are included in Appendices 1–5 (supplemental material).
Data collection procedures
Vaccine recipients were invited to complete a paper-based feedback survey while in the post-vaccination area on selected days prior to and post-CARD implementation. For the baseline/pre-CARD phase, data were collected June 11–12, 2021. Post-implementation data were collected during CARD implementation, on July 14–15 and again on July 22–23, 2021 (N.B. more dates were used post-implementation due to reduced clinic hours and fewer staff). The survey inquired about level of pain, fear and dizziness experienced during vaccination (using a 0–10 numerical rating scale), concerns about vaccination and preferences for specific interventions (privacy, support person, distraction items, topical anesthetics) for making vaccinations more comfortable in the future. Demographic information included age (in years), gender (male, female, other) and COVID-19 vaccine dose number (dose 1 or dose 2). Syncopal and pre-syncopal episodes were documented by clinic physicians.
Vaccinators involved in both pre- and post-CARD implementation phases were invited to complete a paper survey inquiring about their attitudes about CARD and changes in practices. Level of agreement to a set of statements from three categories was graded using five-point Likert scales (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree). The first category asked about attitudes regarding the importance of client comfort (3 questions). The second category asked about the vaccine environment (11 questions) and the third asked about attitudes toward CARD (13 questions). Additionally, vaccinators were asked about their actual practices to improve vaccine recipient coping after CARD compared to before (19 questions) (less, same, more). Demographic characteristics included age, clinic role and gender.
Sample size calculation and data analysis
Based on a prior study, approximately 2000 individuals were deemed sufficient to detect a difference in symptoms (pain, fear, dizziness) during vaccination.Citation14 Symptoms were compared between groups (i.e., before and after CARD implementation) using 1000 trials of stratified bootstrapping with ordinal regression analysis.Citation18,Citation19 Variables considered in the models were age (in years), gender (male, female, other), dose number (first or second dose) and presence of any external factors that increased stress on vaccination day such as needle fear and vaccine side effects (yes, no). The effect of each factor, as well as their two-way interactions, were calculated. The treatment effect was expressed using the odds ratio and associated 95% confidence interval. Non-significant factors (p > .05) were removed from the model. Vaccinator feedback was analyzed using descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, standard deviation).
Results
A total of 2,488 vaccine recipients completed the survey, including 1,118 before CARD implementation out of a total 1,474 possible respondents (response rate of 75.8%) and 1,370 participants post-implementation out of 2,212 possible respondents (response rate of 61.9%). The pre-implementation survey was collected by two research assistants per day while the post-implementation survey was collected by one research assistant per day, which impacted the response rate. A total of 41 vaccinators completed the staff survey out of a possible 67 vaccinators (response rate 61.2%). Characteristics of vaccine recipients and vaccinators are shown in . There was important imbalance between groups in number of clients receiving their first (or second) COVID-19 vaccine dose.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of vaccine recipients and vaccinators.
The odds ratio and related 95% confidence intervals for pain, fear, and dizziness scores are displayed in . The analysis model for needle pain demonstrated that the intervention (CARD), gender (male) and increasing age were associated with significantly lower odds for pain. The pain model also revealed a significant interaction between CARD and age indicating diminished effectiveness of CARD in older individuals. The needle fear model demonstrated that the intervention (CARD), gender (male), increasing age, and dose number (dose 2) were associated with significantly lower reported needle fear. The survey response “concerns about vaccination side effects” was associated with higher fear. The fear model revealed a significant interaction between CARD and age, indicating diminished effectiveness for older individuals. The dizziness model demonstrated that the intervention (CARD) and increasing age (years) were associated with lower odds of dizziness. Concerns about vaccination side effects and needle fear were associated with higher dizziness. On the pre-CARD implementation survey days, there were two pre-syncopal episodes and on the post-CARD implementation survey days, there was one individual who fainted and one pre-syncopal episode.
Table 2. Estimated odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals for self-reported pain, fear, and dizziness in COVID-19 vaccine recipients.
Across the entire study sample, distraction was selected most frequently for improving the vaccination experience (35.8%), followed by having a support person present (21.2%), vaccination in privacy (18.6%), and topical anesthetics (6.3%).
The responses of vaccinators to feedback surveys (n = 41) are summarized in . The results revealed strong support for comfort and education, a conducive environment to implement CARD, and positive attitudes about CARD (). Vaccinator practices shifted after CARD. The most common strategies utilized more frequently after CARD implementation included omitting cleansing of the skin with alcohol swabs prior to injection, use of deep breathing by clients, use of muscle tension exercises, and asking clients about their preferred coping strategies ().
Table 3. Summary of vaccinator attitudes about vaccine recipient comfort, the clinic environment and adoption of the CARD system.
Table 4. Vaccinator practices after implementation of CARD system (vs. usual practice).
Discussion
We implemented a modified version of the CARD system—an evidence-based framework for delivering vaccinations—for a COVID-19 mass vaccination clinic in Southwestern Ontario. At the time of the study, both adults and children aged 12 and above were eligible for vaccination. We found that CARD was associated with diminished levels of stress-related responses during vaccination, including pain, fear, and dizziness, especially among younger clients. To our knowledge, this study provides the first evidence for the effectiveness and feasibility of the implementation of CARD in a pandemic mass vaccination situation.
We postulate that the observed benefit on ISRR was due to the combined effects of education of vaccine recipients and vaccinators and use of CARD strategies during vaccination. Systematic efforts at reducing stress-related responses in individuals undergoing vaccination have not been a prioritized aspect of immunization even though they are iatrogenic harms of vaccination and well-documented to contribute to decreased vaccine acceptance, including COVID-19 vaccination.Citation20 This study shows that a relatively simple intervention, with limited staff training, can be integrated in vaccination delivery. Vaccine recipients also endorsed having CARD interventions available to improve the vaccine experience. Importantly, client preferences for coping should be accommodated within clinics and are an important aspect of person-centered approaches to health-care delivery.Citation21,Citation22
We found that individuals who identified as male self-reported lower vaccine stress-related responses. These results are consistent with prior studies showing higher prevalence rates for pain and fear in females.Citation3 While this might be protective for males, it can also be an indication of the long-standing social norm in which males are expected to brave stress and pain.Citation23,Citation24 Interventions to support clients to better manage pain and fear are strongly recommended for all individuals, regardless of gender.Citation25,Citation26
CARD was perceived as acceptable and feasible to vaccinators. Vaccinators reported positive attitudes about CARD and many confirmed using evidence-based interventions post-CARD implementation. We note that our national vaccination administration guidelinesCitation27,Citation28 recommend alcohol skin antisepsis prior to injection while the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against it.Citation29,Citation30 We adopted the WHO guidance in CARD implementation due to the lack of proven effectiveness of this intervention and the potential to reduce fear. We recommend reexamination of our national guidelines in light of the WHO’s recommendations as well as a review published during the COVID-19 pandemic.Citation30
At the time the study was undertaken, there was no possibility of including education for vaccine recipients about CARD before coming to the clinic. This would have been expected to further improve the impact as individuals could be educated and better prepared for vaccination. It is possible that many individuals would have chosen to bring a support person with them or some other coping intervention. Education ahead of time using online scheduling systems is recommended for future implementation efforts, to further augment the effectiveness of CARD.
Limitations of the study include the lack of randomization of participants. There was evidence of imbalance in baseline characteristics between groups. We implemented 1000 trials of stratified bootstrapping to correct for these; however, we cannot rule out residual confounding due to the presence of variables that were not measured and therefore not accounted for in the analysis. Our survey was designed to be brief and consequently included only the primary variables of interest to maximize response rate. While the results are limited to one vaccine center providing COVID-19 vaccinations in one geographical region with limited cultural diversity (about two-thirds European origin, one-fourth Asian origin),Citation31 the vaccination setup and procedures conformed with our governmental recommendations for setting up mass COVID-19 vaccination clinics in our province. Therefore, we expect the results to be generalizable to other mass vaccination clinics serving similar populations.
Strengths include the real-world approach to CARD implementation, which prioritized feasibility. We demonstrated that a busy mass vaccination clinic, where there is little time for vaccinators to receive additional training or to spend long periods with individual vaccine clients, can implement a simplified version of CARD and achieve a clinical benefit. Moreover, the high survey response rates (>60%) for both vaccine recipients and staff improve the confidence of the findings.Citation32
In summary, this study demonstrated feasibility, effectiveness and acceptability of an adapted version of the CARD system in mass vaccination clinics among individuals aged 12 y and older. The CARD framework offer a feasible way of reducing ISRR and addressing vaccine hesitancy related to stress-related reactions. Future studies should evaluate CARD implementation across cultural contexts.
Supplemental Material: Topical anesthetic
Download MS Power Point (550.4 KB)Supplemental Material: Huddles
Download PDF (54.6 KB)Supplemental Material: Fainting
Download MS Power Point (879 KB)Supplemental Material: Guide for HCP
Download MS Power Point (839.4 KB)Supplemental Material: CARD pamphlet
Download MS Power Point (2.2 MB)Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all study participants for taking part in the study and for the Centre for Family Medicine team for agreeing to undertake the study in their COVID-19 mass immunization clinic.
Disclosure statement
Dr A Taddio declares a University of Toronto Section 9 Trademark No. 924835 for CARD™. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2022.2089500
Additional information
Funding
References
- Bloom DE. The value of vaccination. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2011;697:1.
- Donnelly RF. Vaccine delivery systems. Hum Vacc Immunother. 2017;13(1):17–6. doi:10.1080/21645515.2016.1259043.
- McLenon J, Rogers MAM. The fear of needles: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(1):30–42. doi:10.1111/jan.13818.
- Deacon B, Abramowitz J. Fear of needles and vasovagal reactions among phlebotomy patients. J Anxiety Disord. 2006;20(7):946–960. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.01.004.
- Czech O, Wrzeciono A, Rutkowska A, Guzik A, Kiper P, Rutkowski S. Virtual reality interventions for needle-related procedural pain, fear and anxiety—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(15):3248. doi:10.3390/jcm10153248.
- McMurtry CM, Pillai Riddell R, Taddio A, Racine N, Asmundson GJG, Noel M, Chambers CT, Shah V. Far from “just a poke”: common painful needle procedures and the development of needle fear. Clin J Pain. 2015;31(Supplement 10):S3–S11. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000272.
- Love AS, Love RJ. Considering needle phobia among adult patients during mass COVID-19 vaccinations. J Prim Care Comm Health. 2021;12:21501327211007393. doi:10.1177/21501327211007393.
- Taddio A, Ipp M, Thivakaran S, Jamal A, Parikh C, Smart S, Sovran J, Stephens D, Katz J. Survey of the prevalence of immunization non-compliance due to needle fears in children and adults. Vaccine. 2012;30(32):4807–4812. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.011.
- Freeman D, Lambe S, Yu L-M, Freeman J, Chadwick A, Vaccari C, Waite F, Rosebrock L, Petit A, Vanderslott S, et al. Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Psychol Med. 2021 Jun 11:1–11. Online ahead of print. doi:10.1017/S0033291721002609.
- Gold MS, MacDonald NE, McMurtry CM, Balakrishnan MR, Heininger U, Menning L, Benes O, Pless R, Zuber PLF. Immunization stress-related response – redefining immunization anxiety-related reaction as an adverse event following immunization. Vaccine. 2020;38(14):3015–3020. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.046.
- Taddio A, McMurtry CM, Shah V, Riddell RP, Chambers CT, Noel M, MacDonald NE, Rogers J, Bucci LM, Mousmanis P. Reducing pain during vaccine injections: clinical practice guideline. Can Med Assoc J. 2015;187(13):975. doi:10.1503/cmaj.150391.
- Taddio A, Ilersich A, McMurtry CM, Bucci LM, MacDonald NE. Managing pain and fear: Playing your CARDs to improve the vaccination experience. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2021;47(1):87–91. doi:10.14745/ccdr.v47i01a12.
- Taddio A, Alderman L, Freedman T, McDowall T, McMurtry CM, MacDonald N, deVlaming-Kot C, Alfieri-Maiolo A, Wong H, Bucci LM. The CARD™ system for improving the vaccination experience at school: Results of a small-scale implementation project on program delivery. Paediatrics Child Health. 2019;24(Supplement_1):S54–S67. doi:10.1093/pch/pxz021.
- Taddio A, Gudzak V, Jantzi M, Logeman C, Bucci LM, MacDonald NE, Moineddin R. Impact of the CARD (comfort ask relax distract) system on school-based vaccinations: a cluster randomized trial. Vaccine. 2022;40(19):2802–2809. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.02.069.
- Region W. Demographics. 2020 [accessed 2022 Mar 9]. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doing-business/demographics.aspx#::text=Waterloo%20Region%20had%20a%20population,will%20reach%20923%2C000%20by%202051.
- Go C. National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI): statements and publications. 2021 [accessed 2021 June 17]. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci.html.
- Taddio A, Bucci LM, Logeman C, Gudzak V. The CARD™ System: a patient-centred care tool to ease pain and fear during school vaccinations. 2020 [accessed 2022 Mar 16]. https://canvax.ca/brief/cardtm-system-patient-centred-care-tool-ease-pain-and-fear-during-school-vaccinations.
- Park TC, Bilder R, Thomas ML. Analysis of categorical data with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC: book review. Biometrics. 2015;71:1198–1199.
- Butlin RK. Book review: A.C Davidson & D.V. Hinkley (1997) bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. vol. 671998, p. 842 . £24.95 (paperback), ISBN 0‐521‐57471‐4.
- Tan L. Adult vaccination: now is the time to realize an unfulfilled potential. Hum Vacc Immunother. 2015;11(9):2158–2166. doi:10.4161/21645515.2014.982998.
- Canada Go. Communicating effectively about immunization: Canadian immunization guide. 2021 [accessed 2022 Mar 2]. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-1-key-immunization-information/page-5-communicating-effectively-immunization.html.
- Taddio A. Pain pain go away: improving the vaccination experience at school. Paediatrics Child Health. 2019;24(Suppl 1):S1–s2. doi:10.1093/pch/pxz016.
- Bartley EJ, Fillingim RB. Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(1):52–58. doi:10.1093/bja/aet127.
- Fillingim RB, Maixner W. Gender differences in the responses to noxious stimuli. Pain Forum. 1995;4(4):209–221. doi:10.1016/S1082-3174(11)80022-X.
- Paller CJ, Campbell CM, Edwards RR, Dobs AS. Sex-based differences in pain perception and treatment. Pain Med (Malden, Mass). 2009;10(2):289–299. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00558.x.
- Pinto PR, Paredes AC, Costa P, Carvalho M, Lopes M, Fernandes S, Pedras S, Almeida A. Effectiveness of two psychological interventions for pain management, emotional regulation and promotion of quality of life among adult Portuguese men with haemophilia (PSY-HaEMOPEQ): study protocol for a single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e016973. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016973.
- Go C. Vaccine administration practices: Canadian immunization guide. 2017 [accessed 2022 Mar 5]. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-1-key-immunization-information/page-8-vaccine-administration-practices.html.
- Dulong C, Brett K, Argáez C. CADTH rapid response reports. Skin preparation for injections: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Copyright © 2020 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2020.
- WHO Organization. WHO best practices for injections and related procedures toolkit. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
- Poland EG, McGuire DK, Ratishvili T, Poland GA. The economics of global COVID vaccine administration during a pandemic - why continue skin alcohol preparation as a costly but ineffective practice? Vaccine. 2021;39(8):1175–1177. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.12.082.
- Canada S. Census profile, 2016 Census 2016. [accessed 2022 May25]. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Tab=1&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3530016&Geo2=CD&Code2=3530&SearchText=waterloo&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Ethnic%20origin&TABID=1&type=1.
- Burns KEA, Duffett M, Kho ME, Meade MO, Adhikari NKJ, Sinuff T, Cook DJ. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;179(3):245. doi:10.1503/cmaj.080372.