Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25928311›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

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

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sudesh GyawaliDepartment of Pharmacology, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. sudeshgy@hotmail.com.
Devendra Singh RathoreDepartment of Pharmacy, L.R. Institute of Pharmacy, Jabli-kyar, Solan, India. rathoredsp66@gmail.com.
Pathiyil Ravi ShankarDepartment of Pharmacology, Xavier University School of Medicine, Oranjestad, Aruba, Kingdom of the Netherlands. ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com.
Vikash K C KumarDepartment of Statistics, PN Multiple Campus, Pokhara, Nepal. vkkc2001@gmail.com.
Manisha MaskeyDepartment of Community Medicine, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. manzasharma@gmail.com.
Nisha JhaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, KIST Medical College, Imadol, Nepal. nishajha32@gmail.com.
Manipal College of Medical Sciences · NPKIST Medical College · NPPokhara University · NPUniversity of Aruba · AW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionsLess 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.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansInjectionsMaleMiddle AgedNeedlestick InjuriesNepalPatient Acceptance of Health CareRural PopulationSafety ManagementSurveys and QuestionnairesSyringesUrban Population

Identifiers

PMID25928311
PMCPMC4425888
OpenAlexW2168110824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.