↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0505-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rami Tarabay, Rola El Rassi, Abeer Dakik, Alain Harb, Rami A. Ballout, Batoul Diab, Selma Khamassi, Elie A. Akl

Abstract

Adopting technologies such as injection safety devices in healthcare settings can enhance injection safety. Developing guidelines for appropriate adoption of such technologies need to consider factors beyond evidence for their health effects. The objective of this study is to systematically review the published literature for evidence among healthcare workers and patients about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings. We included both qualitative and quantitative studies conducted with the general public, patients, and healthcare workers, administrators, or policy makers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and CENTRAL. We used a duplicate and independent approach to title and abstract screening, full text screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. Out of a total of 6568 identified citations, we judged fourteen studies as eligible for this systematic review. All these studies were surveys, conducted with healthcare workers in high-income countries. We did not identify any qualitative study, or a study of the general public, patients, healthcare administrators or policy makers. We did not identify any study assessing knowledge, or values assigned to outcomes relevant to injection safety devices. Each of the included studies suffered from methodological limitations, which lowers our confidence in their findings. Based on the findings of six studies, the injection safety devices were generally perceived as easy to use and as an improvement compared with conventional syringes. Some of these studies reported few technical problems while using the devices. In three studies assessing perceived safety, the majority of participants judged the devices as safe. Two studies reported positive perceptions of healthcare workers regarding patient tolerance of these injection safety devices. One study found that less than half the nurses felt comfortable using the insulin pens. Findings from four studies assessing preference and satisfaction were not consistent. This systematic review identified evidence that injection safety devices are generally perceived as easy to use, safe, and tolerated by patients. There were few reports of technical problems while using the devices and some discomfort by nurses using the insulin pens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,985,702
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,083
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,413
of 354,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#12
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 354,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.