ArticleCureus2024
Awareness, Perception, and Practice Regarding Needle-Stick Injury and Its Prevention Among Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Southern India.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Level of knowledge and affecting factors regarding isolation precautions of emergency health workers: a cross-sectional multicenter study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Needle stick injuries caused by various sharp and other items like hypodermic needles and intravenous cannulas are important occupational hazards for healthcare workers (HCW). Preventing injuries is the most effective way to protect workers and requires good awareness and perceptions associated with practice on a daily basis. Therefore, we did a descriptive cross-sectional study involving healthcare workers in a tertiary care hospital to find the level of awareness, perception, and practice associated with needle stick injury and its prevention. Methodology A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital, in south India. 400 healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, technicians, and housekeeping staff) with more than one year of experience were randomly selected. An anonymous, self-reporting, semi-structured questionnaire was administered. Results are expressed in mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentages. Results Out of 400 respondents, 89% had good awareness about proper disposal practices. However,44% of the participants had the misbelief that recapping needles was recommended to prevent needle stick injury (NSI), and 30.5% practiced it, with the doctors being the majority. The majority (79.8%) knew that HIV, Hepatitis B & C are blood-borne pathogens that HCWs are most commonly exposed to through needle-stick injury (NSI). However, only 49% knew that Hepatitis B has the highest risk of transmission following a needle prick. 75% were aware of the correct Hepatitis B vaccination doses. Most of the healthcare workers (89.5%) claimed to be aware of the procedure and guidelines to be followed after a needle stick injury and 96% felt that they would report NSI immediately. Awareness regarding Hepatitis C prevention was comparatively poor, with only 47% having knowledge regarding the non-availability of Hepatitis C Vaccination and& 46% about the non-availability of post-exposure prophylaxis for Hepatitis C. Among the healthcare workers, 61% were worried about having needle stick injuries but 56.5% felt that their own personal safety is secondary to patient care. Among the HCWs, 91.3% believed that needle stick injuries can be prevented. Most of the participants (93.5%) ensure that others around them take extra precautions while handling sharp/ needles. The majority, i.e. 88%, utilized a designated container for disposal of sharp items, while only 53% of respondents utilized a needle cutter or shredder. 85% of HCWs had attended specific training programs on the usage of safe devices/sharps in the preceding one-year period and 72.8% had completed the vaccination against Hepatitis B. Conclusion Awareness regarding needle stick injury and its prevention is patchy and not adequate across different sections of healthcare workers. Perceptions regarding needle stick injury and its prevention revealed an overall positive attitude. Practices related to needle stick injury and its prevention seem to be reasonably good except when related to recapping and waiting to dispose of until the completion of the session. Training sessions need to be tailored for specific participant groups and a 'one size fits all' philosophy cannot be followed.
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.