ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2020
Evaluation of Antidiabetic Injectable Technique: Is There an Association between Accuracy and Health Literacy or Duration of Diabetes?
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective diabetes pharmacotherapy often involves injectable medications, which if used inappropriately represents a type of unintentional medication nonadherence that leads to poor outcomes.
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to assess the percent of patients who accurately prepared, administered, stored, and disposed of their injectable diabetes medication. Secondary objectives included comparing the accuracy of injectable use among those with diabetes <5 years vs. ≥ 5 years duration and those with limited vs. proficient health literacy.
methodsThis was a prospective analysis conducted on a convenience sample of patients who received a pilot pharmacist-led, quality improvement service at an urban, ambulatory care clinic. The service components included health literacy screening, using the Rapid Assessment of Adult Literacy in Medicine - Short Form (REALM-SF) tool, evaluation of injectable technique by use of a standardized questionnaire, and provision of medication education. Duration of diabetes was determined by patient self-report. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were utilized to assess accuracy of injectable technique in two group comparisons: (1) patients with limited vs. proficient health literacy and (2) patients with diabetes <5 years vs. ≥5 years.
resultsThirty-five patients were included in the analysis. Despite the majority (71.4%) of patients reporting prior education on injectable use, 54.3% reported at least one error in product use. Significant findings noted were that those with limited health literacy had higher rates of accurately using the skin-fold technique and appropriate angle for injection vs. those with proficient health literacy (p<0.05 for both comparisons). Likewise, more patients in the cohort of diabetes duration ≥5 years accurately rotated the injection site vs. those with a duration <5 years (p=0.001).
conclusionErrors in injectable technique were common in this study and spanned across health literacy levels and duration of diabetes. Patients prescribed injectable diabetes medications should be routinely educated on proper technique for use.
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.