ArticleCureus2025
Empowering Healthcare Workers in Oman Through Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward Needlestick and Sharps Injury (NSI) Prevention.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Editorial Comment to Needlestick Injury During Urological Surgery: A 15-Year Review From a Multi-Institutional Study in the Chugoku-Shikoku Japan Urological Consortium.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Needlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs) remain a significant occupational hazard among healthcare workers (HCWs), contributing to the risk of serious bloodborne infections and psychological distress. This study looks at how much HCWs know about preventing NSIs, their attitudes toward it, and what they do to stay safe, while also examining how their background and job affect their safety practices and the chances of getting injured. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 188 HCWs at Diwan Health Complex, Oman, using a validated structured questionnaire. Of the 240 HCWs approached, 188 responded (response rate: 78.3%). Sample size was calculated using a 50% prevalence assumption to ensure maximum variability and adequate precision. Results The mean knowledge score was 16.5 ± 2.83 (maximum: 20), reflecting good awareness overall. However, only 25% knew that soap and water should be used immediately after an NSI, and 60.6% were unaware that no post-exposure prophylaxis exists for hepatitis C. About one-third of HCWs (34.2%) reported at least one NSI. Logistic regression showed that higher knowledge scores (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.05-1.43, p = 0.013) and male gender (OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.01-3.32, p = 0.045) significantly predicted NSI occurrence. Conclusions Despite adequate knowledge, critical misconceptions and unsafe practices persist, highlighting a "know-do" gap. These findings underscore the urgent need for competency-based interventions and institutional accountability. A nationwide NSI prevention training module, incorporating scenario-based education, mandatory reporting, and adoption of safety-engineered devices, is strongly recommended to reduce occupational risks and protect HCWs.
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.