ArticleFlorence Nightingale journal of nursing2021
Sharp Object Injuries of Family Health Workers Working in Primary Health Care Services and Related Factors.
Article in Florence Nightingale journal of nursing, 2021. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate family health workers' exposure to injuries with needlestick and sharp instruments and its related factors.
methodThe universe of the relational descriptive study consisted of 150 family health workers working in 26 family health centers in the Bornova district, and the study was completed with 115 family health workers who voluntarily accepted to participate in the research. The data consisted of 4 sections and 26 questions in total: the questionnaire form created by the researchers in line with the literature, the sociodemographic information form, the questions regarding the needlestick and sharp injuries. In the evaluation of the data, using SPSS 20.0 package program, number, percentage distributions, mean and standard deviation were calculated, and Kruskal-Wallis analysis and logistic regression analysis were performed.
resultsAll of the family health workers included in the research were women and the average age was 38.6 ± 6.38. It was determined that 81.7% of family health workers received occupational health and safety training, and the average score they gave to the level of knowledge about what to do in case of a cutting-edge injury was 7.62 ± .96. In the study group, the ratio of history of needlestick and sharp instrument injury was 79.1%, and the average number of injuries was 6.72 ± 4.01.
conclusionAs a result of the research, it has been determined that family health workers' occupational health and safety training increases the use of protective equipment, where the rate of injuries is high and the rate of reporting in case of injury is very low.
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.