ArticleIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
Needlestick Injuries among Healthcare Workers: Why They Do Not Report their Incidence?
Article in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and associated factors of needlestick and sharp object injuries among healthcare workers in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of needle stick and its related factors in Iranian health worker: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- Needlestick and sharps Injuries among dental practitioners: a cross-sectional study of prevalence, risk factors, and postexposure management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding Needlestick Injuries Among Estonian Nurses: Prevalence, Contributing Conditions, and Safety Awareness.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Impact of educational intervention on dental students' competence in managing injuries caused by sharp objects: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Chiropractic students' views on needle stick injuries and protocols at a South African university.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2025Article
- Article
- Prevalence of needle-stick injury in Iranian nurses: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Article
- Exposure to needle stick injuries among health care workers in hemodialysis units in the southwest of Iran: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Assessment of safe injection awareness and practices among healthcare providers at primary health care facilities.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2023Article
- The Cross-Sectional Study of attitudes towards risk factors of viral infections transmitted by blood-borne pathogens.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2023Article
- Anxiety and perceived psychological impact associated with needle stick and sharp device injury among tertiary hospital workers, Vientiane, Lao PDR.Industrial health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeedlestick injuries (NSIs) among healthcare workers (HCWs) pose an important health challenge and several pieces of evidence show that in many cases HCWs do not report the injury. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis multicenter descriptive cross-sectional study was performed in eight teaching hospitals of Rasht, Iran. Using consecutive sampling methods, 1010 nurses were enrolled from October 2014 to January 2015. A three-part self-administered questionnaire was used. It included questions on demographic features, NSI-related questions, and questions on the knowledge of hepatitis B and C viruses (HCV, HBV).
resultsAmong the 1010 participants, 580 (57.42%) showed a positive history of NSI; the total number of occurrences of NSI was 914. The major item causing NSI was the syringe with needle (315; 34.47%). In this way, NSIs occurred most frequently during recapping and injection [339 (37.10%) and 147 (16.10%), respectively]. Only 92 (10.07%) of all NSI positive participations had referred to the infection control units of their hospitals. The others mostly answered the question of "Why did you not report the incident?" with being too busy at work at the time of injury (140; 27.58%). The results showed that among participants with <5 years elapsed since their vaccination, the risk of NSI reduced to 60% [p < 0.02, odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20-0.80].
conclusionsIt seems that NSI is still a major problem among nurses. Correspondingly, HCWs do not take the reporting system seriously and training them requires an ongoing activity in all hospitals.
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.