Skip to main content
Download PDF

Non-pharmacological interventions for delirium in the pediatric population: a systematic review with narrative synthesis

BMC Pediatrics volume 24, Article number: 108 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Delirium is a serious complication experienced by hospitalized children. Therefore, preventive management strategies are recommended for these patients. However, comprehensive analyses of delirium interventions in children remain insufficient. Specifically, this systematic review aimed to summarize non-pharmacological interventions for pediatric delirium, addressing the urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of effective strategies. We also explored frequently measured outcome variables to contribute evidence for future research on delirium outcomes in children.

Methods

This systematic review searched articles from PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medica databases. The eligibility criteria were formed under the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design framework. Studies were included if they involved (1) children aged under 18 years receiving hospital care, (2) non-pharmacological delirium interventions, (3) comparators involving no intervention or pharmacological delirium interventions, and (4) outcomes measuring the effectiveness of non-pharmacological delirium interventions. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English were included.

Results

Overall, 16 studies were analyzed; of them, 9 assessed non-pharmacological interventions for emergence delirium and 7 assessed interventions for pediatric delirium. The intervention types were grouped as follows: educational (n = 5), multicomponent (n = 6), and technology-assisted (n = 5). Along with pediatric and emergence delirium, the most frequently measured outcome variables were pain, patient anxiety, parental anxiety, pediatric intensive care unit length of stay, agitation, analgesic consumption, and postoperative maladaptive behavior.

Conclusions

Non-pharmacological interventions for children are effective treatments without associated complications. However, determining the most effective non-pharmacological delirium intervention for hospitalized children based on current data remains challenging.

Peer Review reports

Background

Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder that disrupts cerebral function due to underlying diseases or critical care treatment [1]. It manifests as acute cognitive impairment, encompassing changes in attention and awareness, sleep cycle disturbances, agitation, and hallucinations, occurring in 20–70% of hospitalized patients of all ages [2, 3]. Infants and preschool-aged children exhibit delirium symptoms similar to adults [4].

The epidemiology of delirium in hospitalized patients varies across clinical scenarios, with common occurrences in medical-surgical wards, intensive care units (ICUs), postoperative populations, and emergency departments. The prevalence ranges from 2.1 to 94.8% in adults [5]. Delirium also occurs in hospitalized children in diverse settings, with pediatric delirium estimated to occur in 34% of critical care admissions [6], and emergence delirium in over 40% of patients in postoperative surgery care [7].

Pediatric delirium, primarily observed in the pediatric ICU (PICU), manifests in subtypes, including hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed delirium, with the mixed type being the most prevalent [1]. However, current delirium assessment tools commonly encounter challenges in accurately distinguishing between these subtypes, resulting in unrecognized and undiagnosed cases and frequent omission of active screening in clinical settings [8]. Risk factors for pediatric delirium include age under 2 years, mechanical ventilator use for 48 h or longer, immobilization, impaired baseline cognitive function, metabolic dysfunction, hypoxia, benzodiazepine use, and restraint use in the PICU [9,10,11].

Furthermore, children are at a risk of developing emergence delirium after surgical intervention. If children exhibit several cognitive and behavioral dysregulations, such as non-purposeful resistive movements, kicking, pulling, flailing, lack of eye contact, and awareness of surroundings [12, 13], within 45 min of surgery anesthesia, they meet delirium criteria upon transfer from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) to the general ward or ICU [14]. Risk factors for emergence delirium span across three categories: patient-related, anesthesia-related, and surgical factors [12]. In summary, children encounter various risk factors for delirium across all phases of hospital care.

Regardless of the timing and circumstances of a child’s delirium experience, pediatric and emergence delirium experience in a hospital causes significant short- and long-term health outcomes. Children with pediatric delirium can experience prolonged mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay, leading to excess mortality [15]. It increases PICU costs by up to 85% [16]. Additionally, pediatric delirium is associated with a decline in post-discharge health-related quality of life for children under 5 years [17]. Traube [18] suggested long-term research and follow-up studies in PICU survivors with pediatric delirium to investigate the correlation between pediatric delirium and post-intensive care syndrome. Moreover, children with emergence delirium develop more severe behavioral changes 1 week after surgery [19]. Given these critical problems, healthcare professionals must actively develop an integrative and holistic intervention for all hospitalized children at risk of pediatric and emergence delirium.

To date, healthcare professionals have explored pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches for pediatric and emergence delirium [1, 2, 11, 13]. Typical or atypical antipsychotics are used as pharmacological interventions for delirium, even though their use for delirium treatment is not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and these drugs are not licensed for use in children. Antipsychotics, including haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine, are used as first-line pharmacological treatments [20]. Dexmedetomidine, magnesium sulfate, and melatonin have also been used in adults and children with delirium [21,22,23]. Pharmacological interventions in children yield some positive outcomes; however, the associated side effects cannot be overlooked. Children may experience tachycardia, hypotension, sedation, low-threshold seizures, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome with the use of antipsychotic drugs [20]. The side effects of haloperidol outweigh its therapeutic effects even at low plasma concentrations [24]. Moreover, the effect of melatonin use on children is still not fully understood [25]. Recent research reports that antipsychotics are less effective than non-pharmacological interventions in critically ill children [26].

Multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated positive outcomes in reducing the duration and occurrence of delirium in adult ICU and general ward settings [27, 28].

Similarly, non-pharmacological interventions have been attempted in the pediatric population.

These include educational interventions for parents, children, and healthcare professionals [29,30,31], playing music and mothers’ voices for children [32,33,34], and providing weighted blankets as an intervention [35]. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions have been explored in children [36].

Given the need for a comprehensive analysis of delirium interventions in children, we aimed to summarize the effectiveness and limitations of non-pharmacological interventions for delirium in children in this systematic review. Moreover, we aimed to identify frequently measured outcome variables in non-pharmacological delirium intervention research. Herein, we present a narrative synthesis to build evidence for future delirium research in children.

Materials and methods

Search method

An electronic database search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) on May 22, 2021. The search employed three-part keywords: population, diseases, and intervention. Keywords such as “Child,” “Children,” “Pediatric,” “Newborn,” “Infant,” “Delirium,” and “Intervention” were combined. Medical Subject Heading terms from each database were also included in the literature search. A librarian (NWK) with expertise in systematic review search processes reviewed the search keywords. Further, no specific time constraints were applied to the publication date of the articles selected, allowing for a comprehensive and inclusive analysis of relevant literature on non-pharmacological interventions for delirium in children. All the literature searched from the four databases was uploaded to EndNote (Clarivate, London, UK), a web-based reference management software, and duplicates were removed.

Eligibility criteria

The population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design framework guided eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they involved the following: (1) children aged < 18 years receiving hospital care, (2) non-pharmacological delirium interventions, (3) comparators involving no intervention or pharmacological delirium interventions, and (4) outcomes measuring the effectiveness of non-pharmacological delirium interventions. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English were included. The study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and quality improvement projects. Owing to the early stage of pediatric delirium research, quality improvement projects were included in the analysis.

Exclusion criteria involved studies: (1) that did not address the phenomenon of interest, (2) in which interventions were conducted in adults, (3) that were written in a language other than English, (4) that were review articles, (5) that were case studies and protocols, (6) with unavailable full text, and (7) that were duplicates. Two reviewers (KK and JHJ) independently evaluated each article using the eligibility criteria. When opinions differed regarding the final selection of the study, a third author (EKC) intervened to facilitate the discussion.

Quality appraisal

Two authors independently performed quality appraisals using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Two authors independently conducted a risk-of-bias assessment for included articles using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for RCTs and Cohort Studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias, and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set [37,38,39].

Data extraction

Two authors (KK and JHJ) collected data from 1,879 records across PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Titles and abstracts were independently screened based on shared inclusion and exclusion criteria. When opinions differed during the final study selection, reviewers engaged in further discussion to achieve consensus. When consensus was unattainable, a third author (EKC) intervened to facilitate resolution. Ultimately, this systematic review included 16 studies (Fig. 1) [40].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Synthesis

Owing to heterogeneity in non-pharmacological interventions, age-related differences in the pediatric population, and variations in outcome variables and measurement instruments across studies, a meta-synthesis was not feasible in this systematic review. A narrative synthesis of the systematic review was performed in the final analysis of the included studies to address this limitation. Guidance on conducting narrative synthesis in systematic reviews was consulted, and techniques such as grouping and clustering, thematic analysis, critical reflection, exploration of relationships within and between studies, idea webbing, and conceptual mapping were employed to comprehensively overview the included studies [41]. Consequently, the narrative synthesis of this systematic review suggests indications for future delirium in children.

Objective

This systematic review aimed to summarize non-pharmacological interventions for delirium in children to outline current research trends and future directions. This review also explored frequently measured outcome variables in this field of research.

Results

Study characteristics

Table 1 presents the characteristics and summary of the studies included in this systematic review. Non-pharmacological interventions were categorized into two groups: interventions for emergence delirium (nine studies; 56.3%) or pediatric delirium (seven studies; 43.7%). Eight RCTs and one cohort study examined interventions for emergence delirium. Pediatric delirium interventions were explored in two RCTs, one cohort study, and four quality improvement projects. Only 1 study [42] was published before 2010, with the remaining 15 studies published between 2015 and 2021.

Table 1 Summary of studies included in the systematic review
Full size table

Classification and summary of non-pharmacological interventions

Table 2 presents the classification and summary of non-pharmacological delirium interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions were grouped into educational (n = 5), multicomponent (n = 6), and technology-assisted (n = 5).

Table 2 Non-pharmacological delirium interventions
Full size table

Educational intervention

In the five studies on educational intervention, the intervention was conducted for pediatrics, their families, and healthcare professionals [29,30,31, 45, 50]. The children received educational intervention regarding the operation process, instruments, and induction and recovery processes during pre-operative visits [31]. Moreover, the children participated in a one-hour workshop that included group sessions explaining the pre-operative process [50]. The children could freely play with scale models and became accustomed to the surgical environment before surgery, and parents were allowed to participate in this entire session with their children [50].

Educational intervention demonstrated positive outcomes in reducing the incidence of emergence delirium, the dose of propofol administered during surgery (p < 0.05) [31], anxiety levels in children and parents (p < 0.01, mean difference [MD] -10 [-20; 0]), and postoperative maladaptive behavior (p < 0.008, MD = -2 [-3.3; -0.6]) [50]. Parents, instead of children, received educational intervention in two studies [29, 45]. As children have different developmental stages and recruiting them for intervention research in the hospital setting is challenging, researchers provided interventions to the parents on behalf of their children [29, 45]. Video-based delirium education was provided to parents using an iPad (Apple, Cupertino, CA) containing information regarding what to expect, the role of parents, and the relationship between parental anxiety and children’s outcomes in an operating room [29]. A delirium prevention toolkit containing a pamphlet on the importance of promoting a good night sleep was provided to the family [45]. Additionally, parents were encouraged to document the PICU journey in their diary to minimize post-traumatic stress disorder [45]. The educational intervention provided to parents did not reduce their child’s pre-operative anxiety and the occurrence of emergence delirium; however, parents in the intervention group reported higher self-efficacy in helping their child in the operating room (p = 0.03, Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.69 [1.07–2.87]) [29].

Delirium education was also provided to healthcare professionals. The educational intervention encompassed the pediatric confusion assessment method for the ICU (pCAM-ICU), rationale for delirium assessment, documentation, and understanding of negative outcomes associated with delirium [30]. Early use of a quality improvement tool, comprehensive education, a monitoring system with feedback, and multidisciplinary team involvement led to an increase in the delirium screening rate from 51 to 71% [30].

Multicomponent interventions

Multicomponent interventions aim to alleviate delirium experiences in children through a sophisticated strategy involving multiple approaches administered in a bundle, encompassing delirium screening, prevention, and treatment in a combined manner. Kain et al. [42] created the ADVANCE bundle, focusing on anxiety reduction, distraction, video modeling, education, parental presence, less reassurance, and parent coaching. Cloedt et al. [43] developed the pain, agitation, delirium bundle, which actively assesses children’s pain and agitation every 4 h and delirium every 8–12 h using the Cornell assessment of pediatric delirium (CAPD). Rohlik et al. [44] developed the bundle to eliminate delirium (BED), encouraging normalization of day and night cycles, patient orientation to surroundings, and early mobility. Kawai et al. [46] combined the BED bundle with a noise pollution reduction intervention, utilizing sound sensors and implementing the BED bundle for over 28 days. Simone et al. [48] employed an ICU bundle comprising delirium screening, sedation protocols, and early mobilization protocols. A monthly interprofessional case conference increased awareness of delirium, with sedation and early mobilization protocols implemented using this bundle. These multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions increased delirium screening and detection rates, emphasizing the importance of early identification in pediatric delirium intervention and prevention. Moreover, the non-pharmacological interventions were simultaneously administered in a bundle approach. For instance, parental presence and video distraction were implemented concurrently [51]. However, the intervention did not lower the emergence delirium rate in children.

Technology-assisted interventions

Various technology-assisted non-pharmacological interventions have been used to lower the incidence of delirium in children, with varying effectiveness. In the study by Ohashi et al. [49], an anesthesiologist performed an ultrasound-guided nerve block. Nakamura et al. [47] intraoperatively applied unilateral right-side stimulation to the heart in seven acupuncture points using a single-twitch electrical stimulus to reduce emergence delirium in children. Byun et al. [32] and Song et al. [34] recorded mothers’ voices and played them through headphones, effectively lowering the children’s emergence agitation [34] and delirium scores (p = 0.006) [32]. However, another study playing classical music selected by a music therapist via headphones for 30 min three times a day did not report effectiveness in lowering pediatric delirium but showed positive outcomes in lowering sedation use in pediatric ICUs [33]. The choice of music also influenced the outcomes of the pediatric delirium intervention.

Frequently measured outcome variables

Table 3 provides frequently measured outcome variables of pediatric and emergence delirium interventions. Pediatric delirium was measured using the CAPD [52] and pCAM-ICU in five studies [30, 33, 43, 44, 48]. In contrast, emergence delirium was measured using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale (PAED) [53], Watcha scale [54], and Aono’s scale [55] in nine studies [29, 31, 32, 34, 42, 47, 49,50,51]. The most frequently measured outcome variable was pain, assessed using the Behavioral Observational Pain Scale [56], Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Scale [57], Comfort Behavioral Scale [58], and Visual Numeric Scale [59] in six studies [29, 32, 43, 47, 49, 51]. Patient anxiety was measured as an outcome variable using the modified Yale Pre-operative Anxiety Scale [42] in four studies [29, 42, 50, 51], and parental anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [60] in four studies [29, 42, 50, 51]. PICU length of stay, agitation, analgesic consumption, and postoperative maladaptive behavior were also measured as outcome variables in different pediatric delirium research [31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 47, 50].

Table 3 Frequently measured outcome variables
Full size table

Quality appraisal

Two authors independently conducted quality appraisals of all included studies. According to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for randomized control trials (Supplementary Table 2), five studies were reported to have a moderate risk of bias [29, 30, 33, 42, 51], while five studies were reported to have a low risk of bias [31, 32, 34, 47, 49]. Using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for cohort studies, one cohort study was reported to have a low risk of bias [43], and the other had a moderate risk of bias [50] (Supplementary Table 3). Four studies [44,45,46, 48] were evaluated using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria (QI-MQCS) (Supplementary Table 4). Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was rated as “some concern” and “high risk” (Fig. 2). Due to the diversity in the types of studies included, various quality improvement tools were used.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias for included studies

Full size image

Discussion

Non-pharmacological interventions, including educational, multicomponent, and technology-assisted approaches, were implemented to alleviate pediatric delirium and emergence delirium in hospitalized children. Even though the outcomes varied, these interventions suggest potential for further development in future research. Multicomponent interventions, particularly the bundle approach, demonstrated effectiveness in delirium detection, highlighting the importance of early prevention and intervention. Educational interventions yielded more favorable outcomes when directly provided to children and healthcare professionals than to parents. Contrarily, technology-assisted interventions involving invasive procedures showed limited effectiveness, whereas recording the mother’s voice was helpful.

Recent multicomponent delirium interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in adult and pediatric patients across various hospital settings [61,62,63,64,65,66]. This aligns with the findings of this systematic review, indicating that the bundle approach is associated with increased delirium screening and detection rates. Thus, compared with a single-intervention approach in children [33, 47, 49], multicomponent approaches allow for simultaneous delirium screening, detection, and treatment [48].

The outcomes of the educational interventions varied according to the target group. Direct educational interventions for children yielded positive results, reducing the incidence of emergence delirium, propofol administration during surgery (p < 0.05) [31], children’s and parent’s anxiety levels, and postoperative maladaptive behavior (p = 0.015) [50]. In essence, hands-on educational experiences at “eye level,” considering the child’s perspective, proved to be a crucial factor for the success of educational interventions [31, 50]. Future studies should consider developing age-specific strategies, as indicated by key findings in positive outcomes [30, 48, 67].

Educational interventions provided to healthcare professionals were equally successful. This success is attributed to healthcare professionals being the primary caregivers in the PICU and operating room, where parents may not be present with their children. Improved knowledge, self-confidence, and attitude toward delirium assessment and management among healthcare professionals contributed to shorter times for delirium diagnosis and ensured early intervention [44, 68]. Additionally, a multidisciplinary team approach in hospitals reduced barriers to delirium screening among children [30]. This positive cycle resulted in improved outcomes in managing delirium in children.

Conversely, educational interventions provided to parents were ineffective. This ineffectiveness could be attributed to the medical environment in which delirium occurred. The current medical environment frequently shows limitations in incorporating family centered care and parental partnerships in pediatric healthcare [69], which is a key component of delirium intervention in children [62]. Children are separated from their parents during their stay in the PICU or surgery. Delirium education provided to parents may yield partial results, as they do not have enough time or opportunity to positively influence their children. These thoughts would explain the effects of recorded maternal voices on reducing emergency delirium after surgery [70]. Future delirium interventions should carefully consider these aspects and enhance the parent–child relationship.

Technology-assisted interventions have also been explored in hospitalized children. Recordings of mothers’ voices played through headphones were an effective and non-invasive intervention approach for children [34]. Conversely, stimulating acupuncture points and performing nerve blocks are invasive procedures for children [47, 49], showing limited evidence in lowering pediatric or emergence delirium. This raises questions about whether a medical intervention, particularly an invasive approach, is the most suitable method for addressing the complex causes and symptoms of delirium in children. In future research, careful consideration should be given to interventions that minimize harm while maximizing positive outcomes for children.

A difference was observed in the method of research between pediatric and emergence delirium. Non-pharmacological interventions for emergence delirium in children were mostly used in RCTs, whereas non-pharmacological interventions for pediatric delirium were used in quality improvement projects and one cohort study [43]. Quality improvement projects do not offer the highest quality of research evidence; however, we verified the included quality improvement interventions using the quality improvement minimum quality criteria set [71] in this systematic review. These quality improvement reports are sufficient to serve as a basis for superior forms of pediatric delirium research in the future. We anticipate that the level of non-pharmacological intervention research on pediatric delirium will increase based on these quality improvement projects. This review highlights the need for RCTs in future pediatric and emergence delirium research.

In particular, in the research setting of pediatric delirium the main challenges are the lack of standardized terminology, dedicated assessment tools, and outcome measures. The major impediment is the current inability of assessment tools to differentiate between pediatric delirium subtypes [8]. Commonly used tools, such as CAPD and PAED, have limitations, including age-specific specificity and sensitivity issues, making the evaluation challenging for delirium subtypes [52, 72, 73]. Furthermore, the global lack of awareness regarding the substantial difference between hyperactive and hypoactive delirium in children poses another impediment to delirium treatment in this population [74]. The hypoactive subtype of pediatric delirium is clinically distinct, associated with worse long-term outcomes, and is unresponsive to drug treatment [75]. This limitation is critical because neglecting subtype differences may lead to incorrect uniform treatment approaches, including pharmacological interventions [8]. Antipsychotic medications are frequently applied universally despite discussions highlighting their ineffectiveness, particularly in hypoactive delirium [76]. Recent critical care research has explored diverse delirium biomarkers to address these issues [77]. Delivering effective tailored interventions for future pediatric delirium cases requires further research delving into the symptom science of pediatric delirium, facilitating the need for accurate subtyping of delirium in children.

Delirium in children is characterized by a cluster of symptoms with multifactorial etiologies [61], which pose challenges in distinguishing it from fear, anxiety, and agitation [6]. The diverse developmental ages and cognitive abilities of children in the PICU further complicate delirium assessment [78]. Faced with these challenges, some researchers have prioritized fear, anxiety, and agitation as primary outcomes and treated pediatric or emergency delirium as a secondary outcome [29, 33, 42, 50]. However, this approach has a critical limitation in that it may lead to inaccurate reporting because of the potential overlap of primary and secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on identifying appropriate outcome variables that are distinct from other psychological symptoms to precisely assess the effectiveness of interventions in non-pharmacological studies.

Limitations

This study has some limitations. We aimed to conduct an integrated analysis; however, statistical analysis of the resulting data was not possible. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the included studies prevented us from conducting a meta-analysis of the included studies. Therefore, we performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies. Additionally, we only included articles written in English, which could have limited our study findings. As shown in Fig. 2, this systematic review included research with a high risk of bias, which was nevertheless incorporated into the narrative synthesis due to the limited research on delirium interventions in children.

Conclusions

Delirium is a significant complication observed in many hospitalized children. Various non-pharmacological interventions, including educational, multicomponent, and technology-assisted approaches, are being explored to mitigate pediatric and emergence delirium in hospitalized children. Although direct comparisons of intervention effectiveness may be challenging owing to different outcome variables, our study highlights the efficacy and limitations of non-pharmacological interventions in pediatric delirium. Additional research is crucial to further enhance our understanding. We advocate for studies using standardized delirium and outcome measurement tools to enable quantitative comparisons, contributing to the advancement of knowledge and the enhancement of care quality for children experiencing delirium.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ADVANCE intervention:

Anxiety reduction, distraction on the day of surgery, video modeling and education before the day of surgery, adding parents to the child’s surgical experience and promoting family-centered care, no excessive reassurance, coaching of parents by researchers to help them succeed, exposure/shaping of the child via induction mask practice

BED:

Bundle to Eliminate Delirium

CAPD:

Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium

CINAHL:

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

EMBASE:

Excerpta Medica database

ICU:

Intensive care unit

MD:

Mean difference

PAED:

Pediatric Anesthesia of Emergence Delirium

PACU:

Post-anesthesia care unit

PICU:

Pediatric intensive care unit

pCAM-ICU:

Pediatric Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit Patients

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

References

  1. Semple D, Howlett MM, Strawbridge JD, Breatnach CV, Hayden JC. A systematic review and pooled prevalence of delirium in critically ill children. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:317–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ali M, Cascella M. ICU delirium. 2022 Aug 8. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559280/.

  3. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5 Task Force. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5™ (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.978089042559.

  4. Morandi A, Thompson JL, Bellelli G, Lucchi E, Turco R, Gentile S, et al. Delirium in patients with dementia and in children: overlap of symptoms profile and possible role for future diagnosis. Eur J Intern Med. 2019;65:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bravo M, Bustos S, Acuña E, Cisternas I, Gutierrez P, Vega DPP, et al. Epidemiology of delirium in hospitalized patients in Latin America: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2023;147:420–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paterson RS, Kenardy JA, De Young AC, Dow BL, Long DA. Delirium in the critically ill child: assessment and sequelae. Dev Neuropsychol. 2017;42:387–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Staveski SL, Pickler RH, Khoury PR, Ollberding NJ, Donnellan AL, Mauney JA, et al. Prevalence of ICU delirium in postoperative pediatric cardiac surgery patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2021;22:68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee-Archer PF, von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Reade MC, Law KC, Long D. An observational study of hypoactive delirium in the post-anesthesia recovery unit of a pediatric hospital. Paediatr Anaesth. 2021;31:429–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dervan LA, Di Gennaro JL, Farris RWD, Watson RS. Delirium in a tertiary PICU: risk factors and outcomes. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2020;21:21–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim HJ. Kim DH [Factors associated with pediatric delirium in the pediatric intensive care unit]. Child Health Nurs Res. 2019;25:103–11 ([in Korean]).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patel AK, Bell MJ, Traube C. Delirium in pediatric critical care. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2017;64:1117–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Menser C, Smith H. Emergence agitation and delirium: considerations for epidemiology and routine monitoring in Pediatric Patients. Local Reg Anesth. 2020;13:73–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Urits I, Peck J, Giacomazzi S, Patel R, Wolf J, Mathew D, et al. Emergence delirium in perioperative pediatric care: a review of current evidence and new directions. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1897–909.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rengel KF, Pandharipande PP, Hughes CG. Postoperative delirium. Presse Med. 2018;47:e53–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Siegel EJ, Traube C. Pediatric delirium: epidemiology and outcomes. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32:743–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Traube C, Mauer EA, Gerber LM, Kaur S, Joyce C, Kerson A, et al. Cost associated with pediatric delirium in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:e1175–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dervan LA, Killien EY, Smith MB, Watson RS. Health-related quality of life following delirium in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2022;23:118–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Traube C. Beware the aftermath: delirium and post-intensive care syndrome in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2022;23:144–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim J, Byun SH, Kim JW, Kim JY, Kim YJ, Choi N, et al. Behavioral changes after hospital discharge in preschool children experiencing emergence delirium after general anesthesia: a prospective observational study. Paediatr Anaesth. 2021;31:1056–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Turkel SB, Hanft A. The pharmacologic management of delirium in children and adolescents. Paediatr Drugs. 2014;16:267–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baumgartner L, Lam K, Lai J, Barnett M, Thompson A, Gross K, et al. Effectiveness of melatonin for the prevention of intensive care unit delirium. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39:280–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Han X, Sun X, Liu X, Wang Q. Single bolus dexmedetomidine versus propofol for treatment of pediatric emergence delirium following general anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth. 2022;32:446–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Koo CH, Koo BW, Han J, Lee HT, Lim D, Shin HJ. The effects of intraoperative magnesium sulfate administration on emergence agitation and delirium in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Paediatr Anaesth. 2022;32:522–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Slooff VD, van den Dungen DK, van Beusekom BS, Jessurun N, Ista E, Tibboel D, et al. Monitoring haloperidol plasma concentration and associated adverse events in critically ill children with delirium: first results of a clinical protocol aimed to monitor efficacy and safety. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2018;19:e112–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Laudone TW, Beck SD, Lahr HJ. Evaluation of melatonin practices for delirium in pediatric critically ill patients. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2021;26:361–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kishk OA, Simone S, Lardieri AB, Graciano AL, Tumulty J, Edwards S. Antipsychotic treatment of delirium in critically ill children: a retrospective matched cohort study. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2019;24:204–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Burton JK, Craig LE, Yong SQ, Siddiqi N, Teale EA, Woodhouse R, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;7:CD013307.

  28. Kang J, Lee M, Ko H, Kim S, Yun S, Jeong Y, et al. Effect of nonpharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2018;48:372–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bailey KM, Bird SJ, McGrath PJ, Chorney JE. Preparing parents to be present for their child’s anesthesia induction: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:1001–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rohlik GM, Fryer KR, Tripathi S, Duncan JM, Coon HL, Padhya DR, et al. Overcoming barriers to delirium screening in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurse. 2018;38:57–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhong Q, Qu X, Xu C. Effect of preoperative visiting operation room on emergence agitation in preschool children under sevoflurane anesthesia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;104:32–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Byun S, Song S, Kim JH, Ryu T, Jeong MY, Kim E. Mother’s recorded voice on emergence can decrease postoperative emergence delirium from general anaesthesia in paediatric patients: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2018;12:483–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Garcia Guerra G, Joffe AR, Sheppard C, Hewson K, Dinu IA, Hajihosseini M, et al. Music use for sedation in critically ill children (MUSiCC trial): a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Intensive Care. 2021;9:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Song SY, Kwak SG, Kim E. Effect of a mother’s recorded voice on emergence from general anesthesia in pediatric patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:430.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Eull D, Zachrison B, Nickel A. Feasibility trial of weighted blankets as an intervention for emergence delirium in postoperative pediatric patients. J Pediatr Nurs. 2022;62:30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kalvas LB, Harrison TM. State of the science in pediatric ICU delirium: an integrative review. Res Nurs Health. 2020;43:341–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp Lisa. Chapter 3. Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; 2020.

  39. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetc R, et al. Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; 2020.

  40. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, Duffy S. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Prod ESRC Methods Prog Version. 2006;1:b92.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kain ZN, Caldwell-Andrews AA, Mayes LC, Weinberg ME, Wang SM, MacLaren JE, et al. Family-centered preparation for surgery improves perioperative outcomes in children: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:65–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cloedt LD, Benbouzid K, Lavoie A, Metras M, Lavoie MC, Harakat S, et al. The impact of implementing a “Pain, agitation, and delirium bundle” in a pediatric intensive care unit: improved delirium diagnosis. J Pediatr Intensive Care. 2022;11:233–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rohlik G, Pfeiffer AJ, Collins CE, Parrett CR, Kawai Y. Improving pediatric delirium assessment documentation and implementation of a nonpharmacologic delirium management bundle in the cardiovascular intensive care unit. J Pediatr Nurs. 2021;60:168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Silver G, Traube C. A systematic approach to family engagement: feasibility pilot of a pediatric delirium management and prevention toolkit. Palliat Support Care. 2019;17:42–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kawai Y, Weatherhead JR, Traube C, Owens TA, Shaw BE, Fraser EJ, et al. Quality improvement initiative to reduce pediatric intensive care unit noise pollution with the use of a pediatric delirium bundle. J Intensive Care Med. 2019;34:383–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nakamura N, Mihara T, Hijikata T, Goto T, Ka K. Unilateral electrical stimulation of the heart 7 acupuncture point to prevent emergence agitation in children: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0204533.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Simone S, Edwards S, Lardieri A, Walker LK, Graciano AL, Kishk OA, et al. Implementation of an ICU bundle: an interprofessional quality improvement project to enhance delirium management and monitor delirium prevalence in a single PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017;18:531–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ohashi N, Denda S, Furutani K, Yoshida T, Kamiya Y, Komura R, et al. Ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric block did not reduce emergence delirium after ambulatory pediatric inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Surg Today. 2016;46:963–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hilly J, Hörlin AL, Kinderf J, Ghez C, Menrath S, Delivet H, et al. Preoperative preparation workshop reduces postoperative maladaptive behavior in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25:990–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim H, Jung SM, Yu H, Park SJ. Video distraction and parental presence for the management of preoperative anxiety and postoperative behavioral disturbance in children: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:778–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Traube C, Silver G, Kearney J, Patel A, Atkinson TM, Yoon MJ, et al. Cornell assessment of pediatric delirium: a valid, rapid, observational tool for screening delirium in the PICU. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:656–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Sikich N, Lerman J. Development and psychometric evaluation of the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale. Anesthesiology. 2004;100:1138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bajwa SA, Costi D, Cyna AM. A comparison of emergence delirium scales following general anesthesia in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2010;20:704–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Aono J, Ueda W, Mamiya K, Takimoto E, Manabe M. Greater incidence of delirium during recovery from sevoflurane anesthesia in preschool boys. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:1298–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hesselgard K, Larsson S, Romner B, Strömblad LG, Reinstrup P. Validity and reliability of the behavioural observational pain scale for postoperative pain measurement in children 1–7 years of age. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007;8:102–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Voepel-Lewis T, Zanotti J, Dammeyer JA, Merkel S. Reliability and validity of the face, legs, activity, cry, consolability behavioral tool in assessing acute pain in critically ill patients. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19:55–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. van Dijk M, Peters JW, van Deventer P, Tibboel D. The COMFORT behavior scale: a tool for assessing pain and sedation in infants. Am J Nurs. 2005;105:33–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. DeLoach LJ, Higgins MS, Caplan AB, Stiff JL. The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variability and correlation with a numeric scale. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:102–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the state–trait anxiety inventory. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Abraha I, Rimland JM, Trotta F, Pierini V, Cruz-Jentoft A, Soiza R, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions to prevent or treat delirium in older patients: clinical practice recommendations the SENATOR-ONTOP series. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20:927–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Chen TJ, Traynor V, Wang AY, Shih CY, Tu MC, Chuang CH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in critically ill adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;131:104239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kim YH, Kim NY, Ryu S. Effects of non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in general ward inpatients: a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0268024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Matsuura Y, Ohno Y, Toyoshima M, Ueno T. Effects of non-pharmacologic prevention on delirium in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis. Nurs Crit Care. 2022;28:727–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang S, Han Y, Xiao Q, Li H, Wu Y. Effectiveness of bundle interventions on ICU delirium: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:335–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Michel J, Schepan E, Hofbeck M, Engel J, Simma A, Neunhoeffer F. Implementation of a delirium bundle for pediatric intensive care patients. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:826259.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Stenkjaer RL, Herling SF, Egerod I, Weis J, van Dijk M, Kudchadkar SR, et al. Development of a non-pharmacologic delirium management bundle in paediatric intensive care units. Nurs Crit Care. 2022;27:867–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Norman SL, Taha AA. Delirium knowledge, self-confidence, and attitude in pediatric intensive care nurses. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;46:6–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. IPFCC. Institute for patient- and family-centred care. https://www.ipfcc.org/about/.pfcc.html.

  70. Wang C, Wang W, Wang S, He R, Yang H, Jia Y, et al. Effect of recorded maternal voice on emergence delirium in children under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2021;209:814–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hempel S, Shekelle PG, Liu JL, Sherwood Danz M, Foy R, Lim YW, et al. Development of the quality improvement minimum quality criteria set (QI-MQCS): a tool for critical appraisal of quality improvement intervention publications. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:796–804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Stamper MJ, Hawks SJ, Taicher BM, Bonta J, Brandon DH. Identifying pediatric emergence delirium by using the PAED scale: a quality improvement project. AORN J. 2014;99:480–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Daoud A, Duff JP, Joffe AR. Diagnostic accuracy of delirium diagnosis in pediatric intensive care: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18:489.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Schieveld JNM, Strik JJMH. Hypoactive delirium is more appropriately named as “acute apathy syndrome.” Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1561–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hayhurst CJ, Marra A, Han JH, Patel MB, Brummel NE, Thompson JL, et al. Association of hypoactive and hyperactive delirium with cognitive function after critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2020;48:e480–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Pisani MA, Araujo KL, Murphy TE. Association of cumulative dose of haloperidol with next-day delirium in older medical ICU patients. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:996–1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Ankravs MJ, McKenzie CA, Kenes MT. Precision-based approaches to delirium in critical illness: A narrative review. Pharmacotherapy. 2023;43:1139–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Paterson RS, Kenardy JA, Dow BL, De Young AC, Pearson K, Aitken LM, et al. Accuracy of delirium assessments in critically ill children: a prospective, observational study during routine care. Aust Crit Care. 2021;34:226–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Yonsei University medical librarian N.W. Kim helped in creating the search keyword strategy.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing, Yonsei University Graduate School & Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Severance Hospital, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea

    Kyua Kim

  2. Department of Nursing, Yonsei University Graduate School & Emergency Nursing, Severance Hospital, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea

    Ju Hee Jeong

  3. College of Nursing &, Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei University, 50-1 Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea

    Eun Kyoung Choi

Authors
  1. Kyua Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ju Hee Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eun Kyoung Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by EKC, JHJ, and KK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KK, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. KK and JHJ made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work and the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. EKC critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. EKC and JHJ approved the version to be published. EKC and KK agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eun Kyoung Choi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1.

Literature search strategy.

Additional file 2: Supplementary table 2.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for randomized control trials.

Additional file 3: Supplementary table 3.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for cohort studies.

Additional file 4: Supplementary table 4.

Quality improvement minimum quality criteria (QI-MQCS).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, K., Jeong, J.H. & Choi, E.K. Non-pharmacological interventions for delirium in the pediatric population: a systematic review with narrative synthesis. BMC Pediatr 24, 108 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-024-04595-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-024-04595-4

Keywords

BMC Pediatrics

ISSN: 1471-2431

Contact us