↓ Skip to main content

Indian Injection Technique Study: Injecting Complications, Education, and the Health Care Professional

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Indian Injection Technique Study: Injecting Complications, Education, and the Health Care Professional
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13300-017-0244-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjay Kalra, Ambrish Mithal, Rakesh Sahay, Mathew John, A. G. Unnikrishnan, Banshi Saboo, Sujoy Ghosh, Debmalya Sanyal, Laurence J. Hirsch, Vandita Gupta, Kenneth W. Strauss

Abstract

Using the Indian and rest of world (ROW) injection technique questionnaire (ITQ) data, we address key insulin injection complications. In 2015 we conducted an ITQ survey throughout India involving 1011 patients. Indian values were compared with those from 41 other countries participating in the ITQ, known here as ROW. More than a quarter of Indian insulin users described lesions consistent with lipohypertrophy (LH) at their injection sites and approximately 1 in 5 were found to have LH by the examining nurse (using visual inspection and palpation). Just over half of Indian injectors report having pain on injection. Of these, 4 out of 5 report having painful injections only several times a month or year (i.e., not with every injection). Doctors and diabetes educators in India (as opposed to nurses) have a larger role in teaching patients how to inject than they do in ROW. Despite this specialized approach, a very high percentage of patients report that they have not been trained (at least cannot remember being trained) in a wide range of essential injection topics. Only about 30% of Indian injectors get their sites checked at least annually, with nearly a third only having sites checked when they specifically complained and nearly 4 out of 10 never having had their sites checked. Indian HCPs can clearly do a better job covering all the vital topics essential to proper injection habits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 21 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 23 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,538,272
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#743
of 1,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,664
of 308,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 308,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.