↓ Skip to main content

Injection practice in Kaski district, Western Nepal: a community perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Injection practice in Kaski district, Western Nepal: a community perspective
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1775-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sudesh Gyawali, Devendra Singh Rathore, Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Vikash Kumar KC, Manisha Maskey, Nisha Jha

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that unsafe injection practice is a major public health problem in Nepal but did not quantify the problem. The present community-based study was planned to: 1) quantify injection usage, 2) identify injection providers, 3) explore differences, if any, in injection usage and injection providers, and 4) study and compare people's knowledge and perception about injections between the urban and rural areas of Kaski district. A descriptive, cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted from July to November 2012, using a questionnaire based survey and focus group discussions (FGDs). A semi-structured questionnaire advocated by the World Health Organization was modified and administered to household heads and injection receivers in selected households and the FGDs were conducted using a topic guide. The district was divided into urban and rural areas and 300 households from each area were selected. Twenty FGDs were held. In 218 households (36.33%) [99 in urban and 119 in rural] one or more members received at least one injection. During the three month recall period, 258 subjects (10.44%) reported receiving injection(s) with a median of two injections. The average number of injections per person per year was calculated to be 2.37. Health care workers (34.8%), staff of medical dispensaries (37.7%), physicians (25.2%), and traditional healers (2.3%) were consulted by the respondents for their basic health care needs and for injections. Compared to urban respondents, more rural respondents preferred injections for fever (p < 0.001). People preferred injections due to injections being perceived by them as being powerful, fast-acting, and longer lasting than oral pills. More than 82% of respondents were aware of, and named, at least one disease transmitted by using unsterile syringes during injection administration or when syringes are shared between people. Less preference for injections and high awareness about the association between injections and injection-borne infections among the general population is encouraging for safe injection practice. However, respondents were not aware of the importance of having qualified injection providers for safe injections and were receiving injections from unqualified personnel.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nepal 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 20 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,633,725
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,010
of 14,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,524
of 264,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#51
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.