ArticlePloS one2023
Needle phobia among adult Jordanians: General awareness, prevalence; and exploring microneedles as a promising solution.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with documented distress during venipuncture in routine health checkups.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Inconvenience, lifestyle flexibility, glycemic control, and satisfaction with insulin treatment among patients with diabetes mellitus in palestine: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fabrication and Evaluation of Dissolving Hyaluronic Acid Microneedle Patches for Minimally Invasive Transdermal Drug Delivery by Nanoimprinting.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Needle phobia in emergency department in a rural district hospital of Nepal: A cross-sectional analysis.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Prevalence, factors associated and management of needle phobia among the general population in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.BMC psychiatry · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Needle phobia remains a major drawback of conventional injectable medications, leading to avoidance and low adherence among a reasonable portion of patients. Despite this, there is a limited number of studies investigating needle phobia prevalence and symptoms. In this survey, we studied the knowledge and prevalence of needle phobia and its manifestations among 1182 adult Jordanians. Moreover, we assessed the feasibility of microneedles delivery systems as an alternative approach to conventional injectable methods. The results revealed that 28.5% of the participants identified themselves with needle phobia, with a notably higher prevalence among females compared to males (p-value < 0.001). The overall prevalence of needle phobia based on its measured manifestations was found to be 27.4%. The survey also found that 68% of the population were unfamiliar with the concept of microneedles despite the reasonable proportion of the population who were aware of the disadvantages of conventional injectable medications. Furthermore, the survey identified four significant predictors of needle phobia through hierarchical linear regression analysis. Gender, occupation, and negative past experiences with needle injections accounted for 3%, 1%, and 1% of the variance in needle phobia, respectively. In addition, the participants' preference for microneedles over conventional injectables medications appeared as another significant predictor, contributing 5% of the variance. Overall, the model explained 10% of the variance in needle phobia. Collectively, this study provides an insight into needle phobia prevalence and manifestations in Jordan, while also exploring microneedles as an alternative drug delivery system for patients with needle phobia.
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.