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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of awareness about precautions for needle stick injuries: a survey among health care workers at a tertiary care center in Pakistan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient Safety in Surgery, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13037-016-0108-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abdul Rafay Qazi, Furqan Ali Siddiqui, Salman Faridi, Urooj Nadeem, Nida Iqbal Umer, Zainab Saeed Mohsini, Muhammad Muzzammil Edhi, Mehmood Khan |
| Abstract |
Needle stick injuries (NSIs) have the potential of causing Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C, which is constantly adding to the burden of chronic liver disease in our country. It poses a risk to Health Care Workers (HCWs) and the patients they deal with. In order to limit the spread of these viruses, it is imperative that these HCWs be fully equipped with knowledge regarding prevention of NSIs and dealing with one, regardless of their designation. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the level of awareness about precautions for needle stick injuries amongst all those greatest at risk. This was a cross- sectional study carried out at Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. A 23 itemed self-administered questionnaire was given to hospital staff including doctors, lab technicians and nurses via convenience sampling, in various departments. Data was analyzed via SPSS 18 software and a p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. A total of 198 responses were taken for this study, out of which 70 (35.4 %) were doctors, 70 (35.4 %) nursing staff and 58 (29.3 %) laboratory technicians. Of all HCWs, 101 (51 %) knew that the standard method of discarding needles is without recapping. 159 (80.3 %) were still recapping needles. 180 (90.9 %) HCWs were vaccinated against Hepatitis B. 36 (18.2 %) were aware that blood should be allowed to flow after an NSI and site of prick should be washed with an antiseptic. The awareness was found to be very low amongst all HCWs. It should therefore be made compulsory for all HCWs to attend proper preparatory classes by the infection control department at the time of employment in order to improve the level of awareness and ensure safe practices. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 37% |
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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#234
of 253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,569
of 345,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 345,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.