ArticlePloS one2018
Nurses have a four-fold risk for overdose of sedatives, hypnotics, and antipsychotics than other healthcare providers in Taiwan.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with the quality of life of multi-professional health residentes.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2022Article
- A Stress Relief App Intervention for Newly Employed Nursing Staff: Quasi-Experimental Design.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nurses have high work stress that may contribute to an increased overdose for sedatives, hypnotics, and antipsychotics (OSHA). We conducted this nationwide population-based cross-sectional study to clarify this still unclear issue. We used a nationwide database to identify 110,379 nurses, 22,032 other healthcare providers (HCPs), and an identical number of individuals from the general population matched by age and sex. We compared the period prevalence of OSHA between nurses and the general population, other HCPs and the general population, and nurses and other HCPs, among nurse subgroups from 2006 to 2012. The risk for OSHA in nurses and in the general population was not significantly different after adjusting for anxiety, insomnia, depression, schizophrenia, and affective disorders (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.145; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.974-1.346). However, in the age subgroups < 35 years, nurses had higher risk than the general population of having OSHA (AOR: 1.333; 95% CI: 1.109-1.601). Other HCPs had a significantly lower risk for OSHA than the general population (AOR: 0.237; 95% CI: 0.122-0.460). Nurses had a significantly higher risk for OSHA than other HCPs (AOR: 3.902; 95% CI: 2.159-7.048). Comparison among nurses showed that younger nurses (< 35 years) had a significantly higher risk for OSHA than the older nurses (≥ 50 years) (AOR: 3.569; 95% CI: 1.252-10.330). Registered nurses had significantly higher risk for OSHA than registered professional nurses (AOR: 1.810; 95% CI: 1.405-2.332); and nurses from clinics, local hospitals, and regional hospitals had significantly higher risk than nurses from medical centers. This study delineated that nurses had a nearly four-fold risk for OSHA when compared to other HCPs. Younger nurses, registered nurses, and nurses from clinics, local hospitals, and regional hospitals had higher risks for OSHA than their respective nurse controls; it suggests that more attention should be given to the occupational health of these populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.