ArticleBMJ open2022
Medical sharps in Portugal: a cross-sectional survey of disposal practices among the diabetic population.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Status of waste disposal of sharps outside medical institutions for patients with diabetes: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Knowledge and Practices of Insulin Injection and Medical Waste Disposal Among Patients with Diabetes in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia: a Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Localization of the questionnaire about sharps disposal at home among diabetes based on knowledge, attitude, and practice theory, and a cross-sectional survey of current conditions.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aim to determine the disposal site for biohazardous materials resulting from diabetes surveillance and therapy.
designCross-sectional study.
settingFive Portuguese primary care facilities.
participantsWe randomly sampled diabetic patients representative of five primary care facilities. Inclusion criteria consisted in patients≥18 years old with an active diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM). Patients unable to provide written informed consent were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURE: Sociodemographic variables, diabetes duration, type of treatment, medical sharps disposal practices and whether adequate disposal information were provided.
resultsA total of 1436 diabetics were included. Overall, 53.8% of diabetics conducted regular capillary glicemia measurements, although 45.3% of them had no medical indication. Statistically significant predictors of adequate disposal were not having an active professional status (p=0.011) and having a DM duration between 5 and 10 years (p=0.014). Only being professionally inactive remained an independent predictor after multivariate logistic regression. Less than a fifth of patients on injectable therapy report having been advised by healthcare staff regarding sharps disposal. Over a fifth of the latter report having received wrong advice. The majority of diabetics dispose of biohazardous materials in unsorted household waste (68.1% of needles/devices with needles and 71.6% of lancets). Other incorrect disposal sites identified were recycling bins, toilet and home accumulation. Only 19.1% of the needles/devices with needles and 13.1% of the lancets were disposed of at healthcare facilities.
conclusionsMost diabetics have unsafe disposal practices for their biohazardous materials, mostly in unsorted household waste. We identified that being unemployed independently predicts adequate disposal of medical sharps and found evidence of low patient literacy on the topic, as well as poor patient education. Therefore, educating and raising awareness among healthcare professionals is crucial to address this public health issue.
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.