Next Article in Journal
Clinical Significance of the 5T;12TG Genotype in Pediatric CFSPID: A Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Callous–Unemotional Traits and Gun Violence: The Unique Role of Maternal Hostility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/children12060776
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Role of Stress in Venipuncture Pain in Adolescents: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Study

by
Joel Brown
1,2,
Zoe Ademuyiwa
1,2,
Elizabeth Wu-Chen
1,2 and
Hadas Nahman-Averbuch
1,2,*
1
Division of Clinical and Translational Research, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
2
Washington University Pain Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2025, 12(6), 776; https://doi.org/10.3390/children12060776
Submission received: 22 May 2025 / Revised: 9 June 2025 / Accepted: 11 June 2025 / Published: 14 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Palliative Care)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: Venipuncture is a painful and distress-inducing procedure, especially in adolescents. However, the effect of stress on venipuncture pain remains unclear. This study investigated the relationships between stress (venipuncture-related and general stress) and venipuncture pain intensity and unpleasantness, hypothesizing that higher stress levels would be associated with greater pain levels. Methods: Forty-two adolescents (five boys, mean age 12.2 ± 1.4) participated in the study, which included completing questionnaires and a blood draw. General stress was assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale. Before the blood draw, participants were asked to rate their venipuncture-related stress level using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Following venipuncture, participants rated their pain intensity and pain unpleasantness using the VAS. Nineteen participants returned for a similar study visit after 1 year. Regression models were used to assess the relationships between pain and stress. In addition, correlations were used to examine the relationships between baseline and 1-year follow-up stress and pain levels. Results: Only baseline venipuncture stress, but not general stress, was related to venipuncture pain intensity (estimate (SE) = 0.185 (0.046), t-ratio = 4.00, p < 0.001) and pain unpleasantness (estimate (SE) = 0.378 (0.116), t-ratio = 3.27, p = 0.002). Baseline stress levels were related to stress levels at 1-year follow-up. However, this was not found for pain levels. In addition, stress at baseline did not impact pain levels at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: General stress may be different from venipuncture stress, with the latter having a greater influence on venipuncture pain. Developing interventions focused on reducing stress related to venipuncture in adolescents could assist in reducing pain and increase willingness to undergo needle procedures.

1. Introduction

Venipuncture can be a painful experience, which can lead to avoiding health-related procedures, such as vaccinations, and, ultimately, impact health, especially in the pediatric population [1,2,3,4]. Venipuncture is related to significant distress, which is defined as any type of negative effect related to the venipuncture procedure (e.g., fear, anxiety, stress) [5,6,7]. Anxiety is a behavioral state associated with the anticipation of potential, unspecified future threats, while fear is the response to a specific and actual threatening stimulus. Stress, on the other hand, is a broad term used to describe situations in which individuals feel that events in their lives are threatening or harmful and that they cannot cope effectively [8]. These fear and anxiety components related to venipuncture pain have been explored extensively [2,7,9,10,11,12,13,14]. However, the role of the stress component in venipuncture pain is less studied and could be critical in developing new interventions for venipuncture pain.
Higher levels of stress are related to greater clinical pain ratings in patients with endometriosis [15,16], visceral pain [17], back pain [18], and fibromyalgia [19]. In addition, stress is related to experimental pain, and higher levels of stress are associated with lower inhibitory pain modulation capabilities in healthy adults [20], as well as higher levels of pain ratings [21]. However, the relationships between stress levels and venipuncture pain are not clear.
Stress can be measured via the Perceived Stress Scale [22], which is not related to a specific event but instead assesses the general experience of chronic stress [8]. Another approach is individual judgment of specific events, in which the same event can be stressful for some individuals but not for others [8]. Previous studies have distinguished between specific and general psychological factors related to pain but found different effects of specific vs. general anxiety and pain catastrophizing levels on pain responses [23,24,25,26]. The present secondary analysis explored the relationships between stress, both general and specific, and venipuncture pain in healthy adolescents. In addition, the longitudinal relationships between stress and pain were also examined. We hypothesized that specific venipuncture-related stress would be related to venipuncture pain. In addition, we hypothesized that stress and pain levels at baseline would be related to stress and pain levels after 1 year.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a secondary analysis of a study aimed at identifying pubertal-related changes in pain [27,28]. The Institutional Review Board of Washington University in St. Louis approved the study. Before study participation, written informed consent and assent were obtained from all participants and their parents or guardians.

2.1. Participants

Participants were included in the study if they were healthy males or females between the ages of 9 and 16 with no diagnosis of chronic pain or frequent headaches (>5 headaches per month), no psychiatric or neurological disorders, no regular use of medications that affect nociceptive pathways (e.g., opioids, antidepressants), and no disorders associated with pubertal maturation.

2.2. Study Design

Participants completed a study visit at baseline and were invited to return after 1 year for an optional identical study visit. Each study visit included completing surveys, including the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Pubertal Development Scale (PDS), the assessment of quantitative sensory testing (which will be presented elsewhere), and a blood draw, which always occurred at the end of the study visit.

2.2.1. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)

The PSS is a long-established self-report measure of perceived stress. This self-report questionnaire is used to assess the degree to which the respondent finds circumstances in their life to be unpredictable, uncontrollable, and/or overwhelming. The PSS captures a respondent’s subjective appraisal of whether life circumstances and experienced events exceed their adaptive capacity. Questions on the PSS ask the respondent to rate their feelings and thoughts for the past month, indicating that general stress (i.e., not related to a specific event) for a relatively recent time frame is assessed [2]. Individual scores on the PSS can range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher perceived stress. Scores ranging from 0 to 13 are considered low stress, 14 to 26 are considered moderate stress, and 27 to 40 are considered high stress. The PSS has been used in adolescent studies and is validated in this population [29,30,31].

2.2.2. Pubertal Development Scale (PDS)

Pubertal maturation stage was assessed using the Pubertal Development Scale (PDS) questionnaire [32]. This survey has good reliability and validity and is correlated with Tanner staging [32,33]. Higher scores indicate a greater pubertal maturation stage.

2.2.3. Venipuncture

At the end of the study visit, a blood draw was completed. The blood draw was conducted in the presence of the parent or guardian in the study room. A trained nurse (J.B.) performed all blood draws. After the nurse explained the venipuncture procedure, participants were asked to rate their specific stress level for the blood draw (termed “specific stress”) using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ranging from “no stress at all” to “the most stress imaginable,” which is similar to previous studies [31,34]. Then, the nurse tied a tourniquet around the participant’s arm and located an adequate vein for venipuncture. After locating an adequate vein and removing the tourniquet, the participants were asked if they would like numbing cream and/or spray. The spray used was McKesson Topical Anesthetic spray. The cream used was Nivagen Lidocaine 5% topical anesthetic cream. While taking time for the cream or spray to take effect, participants were given snacks and/or drinks. Venipuncture was performed using a 21- or 23-gauge BD Vacutainer Push Button blood collection set. Following venipuncture, participants were asked to rate their pain intensity and pain unpleasantness levels from venipuncture using the VAS, ranging from “no pain intensity/no pain unpleasantness” to “most intense pain sensation imaginable/most unpleasant sensation imaginable”.

2.2.4. Pain Rating Scales

Venipuncture pain intensity and pain unpleasantness ratings were collected separately using a mechanical VAS. Participants were instructed to slide the inner portion of the VAS from no pain/unpleasantness to the most intense pain/unpleasantness imaginable. As the participant slides the scale to the right, it exposes more color (on the participant-facing side), which corresponds to greater pain intensity/unpleasantness. Ratings corresponded to numeric values 0–10, accurate to one decimal place (on the experimenter-facing side, and participants did not see these values). The VAS has ratio scale properties, high reliability, and validity for detecting changes in pain magnitude [35,36,37,38,39,40,41].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was completed using JMP (Version 16.0.0). Univariate correlations were conducted to identify factors that are related to the study outcomes (venipuncture pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings). Venipuncture pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings were not related to age and sex (Supplementary Table S1); thus, they were not included in the analyses. For the analgesic agent, 35 participants used both cream and spray as an analgesic numbing agent, 2 participants used only cream, and 5 participants deferred to no analgesic agent. Venipuncture pain intensity ratings were related to analgesic agents, and thus the numbing agent was controlled for in the venipuncture pain intensity analysis. To identify the role of stress in venipuncture pain, regression models were conducted using venipuncture pain intensity or pain unpleasantness ratings as the dependent variables and specific stress (related to venipuncture) and general stress (using the PSS) as the independent variables. In order to verify that the numbing agent did not impact the results, we stratified the participants based on the numbing agent that was used and repeated the regression models, including only participants who used both the cream and spray (n = 35). Conducting the models for the other numbing agent options was not feasible due to the small n (n = 2 for only cream and n = 5 for no numbing agent).
T-tests were used to compare stress and pain levels at baseline and 1-year follow-up. In addition, they were used to compare stress and pain scores at baseline between participants who returned to complete the 1-year follow-up and participants who did not. To identify the factors impacting venipuncture pain at the 1-year follow-up, we tested correlations between year 1 venipuncture pain and (1) stress specific to venipuncture at baseline, (2) stress specific to venipuncture at 1-year follow-up, and (3) venipuncture pain levels at baseline. At the 1-year follow-up, pain intensity and unpleasantness levels were not related to sex, age, or analgesic agent used (Supplementary Table S1), and thus they were not controlled for in the models.

3. Results

Forty-two adolescents completed the baseline study visit (five boys, mean age 12.2 ± 1.4). All participants were non-Hispanic, 29 were white, 8 were black, 4 were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1 was mixed. Furthermore, 11 participants had an annual household income of < USD 100,000, 10 had an income between USD 100,000 and USD 149,000, and 19 had > USD 150,000 (n = 2 refused to answer). The baseline mean PSS was 19.2 ± 4.6, which indicates moderate stress. The mean venipuncture stress before the blood draw was 3.0 ± 3.0. The mean venipuncture pain intensity was 0.8 ± 0.9, and the mean pain unpleasantness was 1.6 ± 2.3. No relationships were found between PDS scores and baseline pain intensity (r2 = 0.018, p = 0.393), pain unpleasantness (r2 = 0.001, p = 0.850), specific stress (r2 = 0.010, p = 0.543), or general stress (r2 = 0.009, p = 0.540).

3.1. Relationships Between Stress and Pain at Baseline

At baseline, general stress was not related to baseline venipuncture stress (r2 = 0.065, p = 0.111). Thus, both were included in the regression models as independent variables explaining pain levels. Both baseline pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings were related only to baseline venipuncture stress and not baseline general stress (Table 1). Even though the numbing agent did not impact the results, we aimed to stratify the results based on the agent. Due to the low number of participants who chose to use only cream (n = 2) and no analgesic agent (n = 5), the analyses were rerun, including only participants who used both cream and spray (n = 35). Similar results were found with both baseline pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings, and they were related only to baseline venipuncture stress and not baseline general stress (Supplementary Table S2). Furthermore, including PDS scores in the models did not change the results, and baseline venipuncture stress was still significantly related to venipuncture pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings.

3.2. Relationships Between Stress and Pain at Baseline and 1-Year Follow-Up

Nineteen participants returned for the additional identical study visit at 1-year follow-up (four boys). No differences in baseline stress and pain scores were found between participants who completed and did not complete the 1-year follow-up (Supplemental Table S3). The stress and pain scores at baseline and after 1 year in these participants are summarized in Supplemental Table S4 and Figure 1. Even though some participants had an increase in their pain and stress levels from baseline to 1-year follow-up, others had a decrease. No significant differences were found between pain and stress levels at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Specific venipuncture stress ratings at baseline were related to specific venipuncture stress ratings at the 1-year follow-up (r2= 0.389, p = 0.007, Table 2). Similarly, higher levels of general stress at baseline were related to higher levels of general stress at year 1 follow-up (r2= 0.322, p = 0.011, Table 2). Surprisingly, venipuncture pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings at baseline were not correlated with venipuncture pain intensity ratings at year 1 follow-up (Table 2, Figure 2). In addition, baseline stress levels, both specific and general stress, were not related to venipuncture pain intensity or unpleasantness ratings at year 1.

4. Discussion

This study examines the relationships between stress and venipuncture pain. Using both general and specific stress levels, it was found that only specific venipuncture stress, but not general stress, was related to venipuncture pain at baseline. Interestingly, stress levels at baseline were related to stress levels at 1-year follow-up, but this was not found for pain levels.
Stress describes a situation in which an individual feels that events in their lives are harmful and that they cannot cope with them effectively. Both general and specific stress are related to increased risk for morbidity and mortality, as well as disease prognosis [42,43,44,45]. Pain, specifically needle pain, can be considered a stressor that can evoke a stress response or distress [9,12,46,47,48]. In addition, greater pain levels are related to higher stress levels in patients with chronic pain and healthy controls [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. In the present study, we focused on two aspects of stress, venipuncture-specific and general. Interestingly, these two types of stress were not correlated, and only venipuncture stress levels, not general stress, were related to venipuncture pain levels. Thus, assessing the specific stress levels in response to a specific stressor, such as venipuncture, could be more relevant and have a greater impact on the individual experience of venipuncture pain than general stress. Similar results were found for pain catastrophizing in studies that distinguished between situational pain catastrophizing, which is specific to noxious stimulation, and dispositional catastrophizing, which refers to catastrophizing thoughts during previous pain events. Situational pain catastrophizing was not related to dispositional pain catastrophizing, and experimental pain sensitivity was more strongly associated with situational pain catastrophizing than dispositional pain catastrophizing [23,24,25]. Thus, psychological factors related to a specific situation may have a different impact on pain compared to general psychological factors.
Many individuals experience distress before venipuncture, which includes behaviors of fear, anxiety, and stress. Our results show that higher stress levels are related to higher venipuncture pain. Similar results were found for fear and anxiety, which were related to venipuncture pain and rated higher [10,49], suggesting that venipuncture can evoke a strong behavioral response involving stress, anxiety, and fear. In line with this, interventions, such as distraction, cognitive behavioral therapy, and pharmacological interventions, aim to reduce venipuncture pain and distress, which includes anxiety, fear, and stress [9,50,51,52,53]. The results of this study suggest that interventions should target specific situational venipuncture-related distress rather than general distress.
In a sub-sample that returned for the optional follow-up study visit after 1 year, there were no differences between stress and pain levels at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Notably, large individual variability in the changes was found, with some participants demonstrating an increase while others demonstrated a decrease in pain or stress levels. Despite this large variability, the stress levels at baseline were related to the stress levels after 1 year, indicating a stable response to stress, as was also found in previous longitudinal short- and long-term studies [44,54]. On the contrary, venipuncture pain ratings at baseline were not related to pain or stress ratings after 1 year, which could be due to age/developmental changes, recall bias, or placebo effect. During pubertal maturation or aging, there are major changes in biopsychosocial factors that could impact pain processing and pain sensitivity [55]. Interestingly, previous cross-sectional studies of adolescents scheduled to undergo venipuncture for routine care found an age effect on venipuncture pain such that older adolescents had lower venipuncture pain intensity compared to younger adolescents or children [13,14], which is in line with the reported age effects on experimental pain sensitivity [55,56,57]. Another factor that could affect pain and stress levels at the 1-year follow-up study visit is the memory of the painful experience during the baseline study visit. Previous studies have found that children and adolescents can recall their pain ratings to experimental pain procedures after 1 year [58]. For medical procedures, such as venipuncture, the memory of past pain experiences can predict future pain levels [59]. For example, in children, if, during baseline, pain was not adequately managed, higher pain ratings were found at follow-up visits [60]. In addition, individuals can differ in their placebo response. Although pediatric participants have, overall, a higher placebo response compared to adults [61], there is also individual variability in the placebo response within each group. A placebo response to a pharmacological intervention for needle pain was found in children and adolescents, and there was no difference found in venipuncture pain between lidocaine and placebo administration [62]. Thus, pain, compared to stress, may be more impacted by various factors that exhibit temporal longitudinal changes in adolescents.
It is important to note that the venipuncture procedure in the present study was optional and for research purposes only, and an analgesic agent was offered to increase participants’ recruitment and retention. The use of analgesic agents could also explain the low venipuncture pain and stress levels observed at both baseline and 1-year follow-up. However, even with an analgesic agent, variability in both venipuncture stress and pain was observed. Even without using analgesic agents, which would result in higher pain ratings, we expect similar relationships to exist in which specific stress is the only factor related to venipuncture pain, suggesting that stress may have a greater impact on pain even if an analgesic agent is used.
The main limitations of the present study are the small sample size and the exploratory approach, which need to be replicated in future studies. This study is a secondary analysis of a study aimed at identifying pubertal and hormonal effects on pain sensitivity in adolescents. Thus, a power calculation was not conducted for the aims explored in the present study, and even though significant relationships were identified, the study may be underpowered. In addition, the number of blood draws the study participants experienced before participating in the present study or between the baseline and the 1-year follow-up study visits was not assessed. It is possible that participants who experience more blood draws will develop coping strategies and have lower stress and pain from venipuncture procedures. However, as the study participants were healthy, we anticipate that most participants will have had no or only routine blood draws, which should be similar across all participants. Importantly, the present research study may have a selection bias as participants with severe needle fear or anxiety most likely chose not to participate in this study, although the presence or lack of needle fear or anxiety was not confirmed.

5. Conclusions

Specific venipuncture-related stress is different from general stress and is the only factor related to venipuncture pain. Developing interventions focused on reducing stress-related venipuncture in adolescents rather than general stress could assist in reducing venipuncture pain and increase willingness to undergo needle procedures.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children12060776/s1, Table S1: Relationships between pain and confounding variables; Table S2: Relationships between baseline stress and pain scores in adolescents using both cream and spray agent; Table S3: Baseline stress and pain levels in adolescents completing vs. not completing the 1-year follow-up visit; Table S4: Stress and pain levels at baseline and Year 1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.N.-A. and J.B.; methodology, H.N.-A. and J.B.; formal analysis, H.N.-A. and J.B.; investigation, J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, H.N.-A., Z.A., and E.W.-C.; writing—review and editing, J.B.; supervision, H.N.-A.; funding acquisition, H.N.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the NIH, grant number R01NS129742, the International Association for the Study of Pain (Early Career Research Grant), and the International Headache Society (Research into Headache in Children and Adolescents Seed Funding Grant).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Washington University in St. Louis (IRB protocol numbers 202109120 [approved on 7 October 2021], 202208056 [approved on 26 September 2022], and 202208057 [approved on 16 November 2022]).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent/assent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be shared upon reasonable request to the investigators due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
VASVisual Analog Scale
PSSPerceived Stress Scale
PDSPubertal Development Scale

References

  1. Taddio, A.; McMurtry, C.M.; Logeman, C.; Gudzak, V.; de Boer, A.; Constantin, K.; Lee, S.; Moline, R.; Uleryk, E.; Chera, T.; et al. Prevalence of pain and fear as barriers to vaccination in children—Systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 2022, 40, 7526–7537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. McLenon, J.; Rogers, M.A.M. The fear of needles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2019, 75, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. 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, 4807–4812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kennedy, R.M.; Luhmann, J.; Zempsky, W.T. Clinical implications of unmanaged needle-insertion pain and distress in children. Pediatrics 2008, 122 (Suppl. S3), S130–S133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Humphrey, G.B.; Boon, C.M.; van Linden van den Heuvell, G.F.; van de Wiel, H.B. The occurrence of high levels of acute behavioral distress in children and adolescents undergoing routine venipunctures. Pediatrics 1992, 90 Pt 1, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fradet, C.; McGrath, P.J.; Kay, J.; Adams, S.; Luke, B. A prospective survey of reactions to blood tests by children and adolescents. Pain 1990, 40, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Loeffen, E.A.H.; Mulder, R.L.; Font-Gonzalez, A.; Leroy, P.; Dick, B.D.; Taddio, A.; Ljungman, G.; Jibb, L.A.; Tutelman, P.R.; Liossi, C.; et al. Reducing pain and distress related to needle procedures in children with cancer: A clinical practice guideline. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 131, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cohen, S.; Gianaros, P.J.; Manuck, S.B. A Stage Model of Stress and Disease. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 11, 456–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Birnie, K.A.; Noel, M.; Chambers, C.T.; Uman, L.S.; Parker, J.A. Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 10, Cd005179. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lunoe, M.M.; Bolin, A.E.; Drendel, A.L. An Evaluation of High Preprocedural Anxiety and Venipuncture Pain Experienced by Young Children. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 2021, 37, e621–e624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bisogni, S.; Dini, C.; Olivini, N.; Ciofi, D.; Giusti, F.; Caprilli, S.; Gonzalez Lopez, J.R.; Festini, F. Perception of venipuncture pain in children suffering from chronic diseases. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. McMurtry, C.M.; Pillai Riddell, R.; Taddio, A.; Racine, N.; Asmundson, G.J.; Noel, M.; Chambers, C.T.; Shah, V. Far From “Just a Poke”: Common Painful Needle Procedures and the Development of Needle Fear. Clin. J. Pain 2015, 31 (Suppl. S10), S3–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Goodenough, B.; Thomas, W.; Champion, G.D.; Perrott, D.; Taplin, J.E.; von Baeyer, C.L.; Ziegler, J.B. Unravelling age effects and sex differences in needle pain: Ratings of sensory intensity and unpleasantness of venipuncture pain by children and their parents. Pain 1999, 80, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Goodenough, B.; Kampel, L.; Champion, G.D.; Laubreaux, L.; Nicholas, M.K.; Ziegler, J.B.; McInerney, M. An investigation of the placebo effect and age-related factors in the report of needle pain from venipuncture in children. Pain 1997, 72, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de França Moreira, M.; Gamboa, O.L.; Pinho Oliveira, M.A. Association between severity of pain, perceived stress and vagally-mediated heart rate variability in women with endometriosis. Women Health 2021, 61, 937–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Booker, S.; Cardoso, J.; Cruz-Almeida, Y.; Sibille, K.T.; Terry, E.L.; Powell-Roach, K.L.; Riley, J.L., 3rd; Goodin, B.R.; Bartley, E.J.; Addison, A.S.; et al. Movement-evoked pain, physical function, and perceived stress: An observational study of ethnic/racial differences in aging non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites with knee osteoarthritis. Exp. Gerontol. 2019, 124, 110622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Edman, J.S.; Greeson, J.M.; Roberts, R.S.; Kaufman, A.B.; Abrams, D.I.; Dolor, R.J.; Wolever, R.Q. Perceived Stress in Patients with Common Gastrointestinal Disorders: Associations with Quality of Life, Symptoms and Disease Management. Explore 2017, 13, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Takegami, N.; Akeda, K.; Yamada, J.; Nishimura, A.; Sudo, A. Association between low back pain and psychological stress response in a Japanese population-based study. J. Orthop. Sci. 2024, 29, 749–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Taylor, A.G.; Fischer-White, T.G.; Anderson, J.G.; Adelstein, K.E.; Murugesan, M.; Lewis, J.E.; Scott, M.M.; Gaykema, R.P.; Goehler, L.E. Stress, Inflammation and Pain: A Potential Role for Monocytes in Fibromyalgia-related Symptom Severity. Stress Health 2016, 32, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilder-Smith, C.H.; Song, G.; Yeoh, K.G.; Ho, K.Y. Activating endogenous visceral pain modulation: A comparison of heterotopic stimulation methods in healthy controls. Eur. J. Pain 2009, 13, 836–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, H.J.; Greenspan, J.D.; Ohrbach, R.; Fillingim, R.B.; Maixner, W.; Renn, C.L.; Johantgen, M.; Zhu, S.; Dorsey, S.G. Racial/ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity and associated factors—Cardiovascular responsiveness and psychological status. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Campbell, C.M.; Kronfli, T.; Buenaver, L.F.; Smith, M.T.; Berna, C.; Haythornthwaite, J.A.; Edwards, R.R. Situational versus dispositional measurement of catastrophizing: Associations with pain responses in multiple samples. J. Pain 2010, 11, 443–453.e442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Edwards, R.R.; Campbell, C.M.; Fillingim, R.B. Catastrophizing and experimental pain sensitivity: Only in vivo reports of catastrophic cognitions correlate with pain responses. J. Pain 2005, 6, 338–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dixon, K.E.; Thorn, B.E.; Ward, L.C. An evaluation of sex differences in psychological and physiological responses to experimentally-induced pain: A path analytic description. Pain 2004, 112, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Granot, M.; Weissman-Fogel, I.; Crispel, Y.; Pud, D.; Granovsky, Y.; Sprecher, E.; Yarnitsky, D. Determinants of endogenous analgesia magnitude in a diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC) paradigm: Do conditioning stimulus painfulness, gender and personality variables matter? Pain 2008, 136, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nahman-Averbuch, H.; Banerjee, G.; Brown, J.; McMichael, A.; Ben Abdallah, A.; Buday, S.; Baranski, T.; Haroutounian, S.; Barch, D.; Garwood, S.; et al. The role of puberty in experimental pain sensitivity in healthy adolescent girls. Pain Rep. 2025, 10, e1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Banerjee, G.B.J.; McMichael, A.; Ben Abdallah, A.; Buday, S.; Baranski, T.; Haroutounian, S.; Barch, D.; AuBuchon, J.; Nahman-Averbuch, H. Androgens and experimental pain sensitivity in healthy adolescent girls. Pain 2025. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yosipovitch, G.; Tang, M.; Dawn, A.G.; Chen, M.; Goh, C.L.; Huak, Y.; Seng, L.F. Study of psychological stress, sebum production and acne vulgaris in adolescents. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2007, 87, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Siqueira, L.; Diab, M.; Bodian, C.; Rolnitzky, L. Adolescents becoming smokers: The roles of stress and coping methods. J. Adolesc. Health 2000, 27, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, J.; Dai, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, S. Factor Structure of the 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale and Measurement Invariance Across Genders Among Chinese Adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Carskadon, M.A.; Acebo, C. A self-administered rating scale for pubertal development. J. Adolesc. Health 1993, 14, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Koopman-Verhoeff, M.E.; Gredvig-Ardito, C.; Barker, D.H.; Saletin, J.M.; Carskadon, M.A. Classifying Pubertal Development Using Child and Parent Report: Comparing the Pubertal Development Scales to Tanner Staging. J. Adolesc. Health 2020, 66, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. LiaBraaten, B.M.; Linneman, N.; Czarnecki, M.L.; Davies, W.H.; Zhang, L.; Simpson, P.M.; Jastrowski Mano, K.E.; Weisman, S.J.; Hainsworth, K.R. Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11: Validation in Pediatric Inpatient and Outpatient Pain Settings. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2023, 24, e7–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hawker, G.A.; Mian, S.; Kendzerska, T.; French, M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 2011, 63 (Suppl. S11), S240–S252. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gallagher, E.J.; Bijur, P.E.; Latimer, C.; Silver, W. Reliability and validity of a visual analog scale for acute abdominal pain in the ED. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2002, 20, 287–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bijur, P.E.; Silver, W.; Gallagher, E.J. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2001, 8, 1153–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alghadir, A.H.; Anwer, S.; Iqbal, A.; Iqbal, Z.A. Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. J. Pain Res. 2018, 11, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Price, D.D.; Bush, F.M.; Long, S.; Harkins, S.W. A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain 1994, 56, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Price, D.D.; McGrath, P.A.; Rafii, A.; Buckingham, B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983, 17, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Myles, P.S.; Urquhart, N. The linearity of the visual analogue scale in patients with severe acute pain. Anaesth. Intensive Care 2005, 33, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Malik, A.O.; Peri-Okonny, P.; Gosch, K.; Thomas, M.; Mena, C.; Hiatt, W.R.; Jones, P.G.; Provance, J.B.; Labrosciano, C.; Jelani, Q.U.; et al. Association of Perceived Stress Levels With Long-term Mortality in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e208741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Arnold, S.V.; Smolderen, K.G.; Buchanan, D.M.; Li, Y.; Spertus, J.A. Perceived stress in myocardial infarction: Long-term mortality and health status outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 60, 1756–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sexton, K.A.; Walker, J.R.; Graff, L.A.; Bernstein, M.T.; Beatie, B.; Miller, N.; Sargent, M.; Targownik, L.E. Evidence of Bidirectional Associations Between Perceived Stress and Symptom Activity: A Prospective Longitudinal Investigation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2017, 23, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Endrighi, R.; Waters, A.J.; Gottlieb, S.S.; Harris, K.M.; Wawrzyniak, A.J.; Bekkouche, N.S.; Li, Y.; Kop, W.J.; Krantz, D.S. Psychological stress and short-term hospitalisations or death in patients with heart failure. Heart 2016, 102, 1820–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vierck, C.J.; Green, M.; Yezierski, R.P. Pain as a stressor: Effects of prior nociceptive stimulation on escape responding of rats to thermal stimulation. Eur. J. Pain 2010, 14, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hannibal, K.E.; Bishop, M.D. Chronic stress, cortisol dysfunction, and pain: A psychoneuroendocrine rationale for stress management in pain rehabilitation. Phys. Ther. 2014, 94, 1816–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Quiton, R.L.; Greenspan, J.D. Sex differences in endogenous pain modulation by distracting and painful conditioning stimulation. Pain 2007, 132 (Suppl. S1), S134–S149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hedén, L.; von Essen, L.; Ljungman, G. Children’s self-reports of fear and pain levels during needle procedures. Nurs. Open 2020, 7, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chambers, C.T.; Taddio, A.; Uman, L.S.; McMurtry, C.M. Psychological interventions for reducing pain and distress during routine childhood immunizations: A systematic review. Clin. Ther. 2009, 31 (Suppl. S2), S77–S103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cho, M.K.; Choi, M.Y. Effect of Distraction Intervention for Needle-Related Pain and Distress in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lluesma-Vidal, M.; Carcelén González, R.; García-Garcés, L.; Sánchez-López, M.I.; Peyro, L.; Ruiz-Zaldibar, C. Effect of Virtual Reality on Pediatric Pain and Fear During Procedures Involving Needles: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JMIR Serious Games 2022, 10, e35008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Suleman, S.K.; Yahya, N.; Nilsson, S.; Enskär, K. Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for mitigating pain and anxiety associated with venipuncture: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Paediatr. Open 2024, 8, e002881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Harris, K.M.; Gaffey, A.E.; Schwartz, J.E.; Krantz, D.S.; Burg, M.M. The Perceived Stress Scale as a Measure of Stress: Decomposing Score Variance in Longitudinal Behavioral Medicine Studies. Ann. Behav. Med. 2023, 57, 846–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nahman-Averbuch, H.; Li, R.; Boerner, K.E.; Lewis, C.; Garwood, S.; Palermo, T.M.; Jordan, A. Alterations in pain during adolescence and puberty. Trends Neurosci. 2023, 46, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Blankenburg, M.; Boekens, H.; Hechler, T.; Maier, C.; Krumova, E.; Scherens, A.; Magerl, W.; Aksu, F.; Zernikow, B. Reference values for quantitative sensory testing in children and adolescents: Developmental and gender differences of somatosensory perception. Pain 2010, 149, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Blankenburg, M.; Meyer, D.; Hirschfeld, G.; Kraemer, N.; Hechler, T.; Aksu, F.; Krumova, E.K.; Magerl, W.; Maier, C.; Zernikow, B. Developmental and sex differences in somatosensory perception--a systematic comparison of 7- versus 14-year-olds using quantitative sensory testing. Pain 2011, 152, 2625–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Badali, M.; Pillai, R.; Craig, K.; Giesbrecht, K.; Chambers, C. Accuracy of children’s and parents’ memory for a novel painful experience. Pain Res. Manag. 2000, 5, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pavlova, M.; Pirwani, A.F.; Thomas, J.; Birnie, K.A.; Wan, M.; Chambers, C.T.; Noel, M. A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Parent-Led Memory-Reframing Intervention to Reduce Distress and Pain Associated with Vaccine Injections in Young Children. Children 2023, 10, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Weisman, S.J.; Bernstein, B.; Schechter, N.L. Consequences of inadequate analgesia during painful procedures in children. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 1998, 152, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Park, K.; Tran, N.K.; Momper, J.D.; Green, D.J.; Burckart, G.J. Pediatric and Adult Placebo Response Rates in Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2012–2020. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2022, 62, 970–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Auerbach, M.; Tunik, M.; Mojica, M. A randomized, double-blind controlled study of jet lidocaine compared to jet placebo for pain relief in children undergoing needle insertion in the emergency department. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2009, 16, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Children 12 00776 g001
Figure 1. Changes in stress and pain levels from baseline to 1-year follow-up. (A) Venipuncture stress (0–10 Visual Analog Scale). (B) General stress assessed via the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). (C) Venipuncture pain intensity (0–10 Visual Analog Scale). (D) Venipuncture pain unpleasantness (0–10 Visual Analog Scale).
Figure 1. Changes in stress and pain levels from baseline to 1-year follow-up. (A) Venipuncture stress (0–10 Visual Analog Scale). (B) General stress assessed via the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). (C) Venipuncture pain intensity (0–10 Visual Analog Scale). (D) Venipuncture pain unpleasantness (0–10 Visual Analog Scale).
Children 12 00776 g001
Children 12 00776 g002
Figure 2. No significant associations between stress at baseline and venipuncture pain after 1 year. (A) Association between venipuncture stress at baseline and venipuncture pain intensity after 1 year. (B) Association between venipuncture stress at baseline and venipuncture pain unpleasantness after 1 year. (C) Association between general stress at baseline and venipuncture pain intensity after 1 year. (D) Association between general stress at baseline and venipuncture pain unpleasantness after 1 year.
Figure 2. No significant associations between stress at baseline and venipuncture pain after 1 year. (A) Association between venipuncture stress at baseline and venipuncture pain intensity after 1 year. (B) Association between venipuncture stress at baseline and venipuncture pain unpleasantness after 1 year. (C) Association between general stress at baseline and venipuncture pain intensity after 1 year. (D) Association between general stress at baseline and venipuncture pain unpleasantness after 1 year.
Children 12 00776 g002
Table 1. Regression models of the relationships between baseline stress and pain.
Table 1. Regression models of the relationships between baseline stress and pain.
EstimateSET Ratiop Value
Baseline Venipuncture Pain Intensity (n = 40)
Specific stress 0.1850.0464.00<0.001
General stress0.0050.0290.170.864
Agent [both]−0.2340.238−0.980.332
Agent [cream]0.5980.3941.520.138
Baseline Venipuncture Pain Unpleasantness (n = 40)
Specific stress 0.3780.1163.270.002
General stress−0.0160.074−0.210.831
Specific stress: stress levels (0–10 VAS) before venipuncture; general stress: Perceived Stress Scale score. Including PDS scores did not change the results. Bold indicates statistical significance.
Table 2. Correlations between stress and pain levels at baseline and after 1 year.
Table 2. Correlations between stress and pain levels at baseline and after 1 year.
Year 1 General StressYear 1 Specific StressYear 1 Venipuncture Pain IntensityYear 1 Venipuncture Pain Unpleasantness
Baseline general stress (n = 19)R2 = 0.322, p = 0.011R2 = 0.026, p = 0.508R2 = 0.082, p = 0.234R2 = 0.142, p = 0.112
Baseline specific stress (n = 17)R2 = 0.076, p = 0.284R2 = 0.389, p = 0.007R2 = 0.002, p = 0.853R2 = 0.007, p = 0.747
Baseline venipuncture pain intensity (n = 19)R2 = 0.025, p = 0.517R2 = 0.005, p = 0.763R2 = 0.133, p = 0.124R2 = 0.133, p = 0.125
Baseline venipuncture pain unpleasantness (n = 19)R2 = 0.043, p = 0.397R2 = 0.095, p = 0.200R2 = 0.092, p = 0.206R2 = 0.043, p = 0.395
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brown, J.; Ademuyiwa, Z.; Wu-Chen, E.; Nahman-Averbuch, H. The Role of Stress in Venipuncture Pain in Adolescents: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Study. Children 2025, 12, 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12060776

AMA Style

Brown J, Ademuyiwa Z, Wu-Chen E, Nahman-Averbuch H. The Role of Stress in Venipuncture Pain in Adolescents: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Study. Children. 2025; 12(6):776. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12060776

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brown, Joel, Zoe Ademuyiwa, Elizabeth Wu-Chen, and Hadas Nahman-Averbuch. 2025. "The Role of Stress in Venipuncture Pain in Adolescents: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Study" Children 12, no. 6: 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12060776

APA Style

Brown, J., Ademuyiwa, Z., Wu-Chen, E., & Nahman-Averbuch, H. (2025). The Role of Stress in Venipuncture Pain in Adolescents: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Study. Children, 12(6), 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12060776

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop