↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of patients', parents' and healthcare professionals' adrenaline auto-injector administration techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Journal, July 2016
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
reddit
1 Redditor
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
56 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.
Article details
Title
A systematic review of patients', parents' and healthcare professionals' adrenaline auto-injector administration techniques
Published in
Emergency Medicine Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1136/emermed-2016-205742
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Introduction: In order to enable fast treatment response to anaphylactic reactions, adrenaline auto-injectors (AAI) have been developed and manufactured. It has been reported in several studies that administration technique is suboptimal. The primary purpose of this study was to review the nature and extent of the deficiencies in administration technique among patients, parents/caregivers and healthcare professionals. Methods: Relevant publications were identified between 1998 and 2015 using two search methods: a keyword search in Embase, PubMed, British Nursing Index and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and a search of reference lists of relevant articles. Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 37% of patients, 32% of parents/caregivers and 21% of healthcare professionals demonstrated correct administration technique. For studies which employed a before-and-after training study design, correct technique was achieved in 77% of patients, 79% of caregivers and 65% of healthcare professionals. The most consistently observed error was the failure to hold the device in place for the recommended time. For patients, factors associated with good technique were being aged over 18 years, trained in AAI administration by an allergist, prescribed an AAI for more than 30 months, having a history of severe anaphylaxis and membership of a support group. For parents/caregivers in addition to those mentioned, being given a training device with which to practice, improved technique. Discussion: There was wide variation in administration techniques reported. However, studies designed using before-and-after training show that even a brief demonstration and educational intervention can improve technique. Further studies are required to design and pilot acceptable and cost-effective educational materials.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Master 5 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 21 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Psychology 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,580,908
of 33,205,760 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#1,406
of 4,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,937
of 328,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#27
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,205,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 328,554 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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 69% of its contemporaries.