ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
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.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Medical Waste Segregation, Disposal Practices for Infectious and Sharps Waste in Healthcare Facilities in Somalia: Implications for Infection Prevention and Control.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Access, awareness, and risk: drivers of unsafe sharps disposal and needle reuse in insulin-treated adults in China.Frontiers in public health · 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
Background: Diabetes Mellitus is a long duration disease, and if a person with diabetes is infected with a blood-borne infectious disease and proper syringe disposal practices are not followed, they run the danger of transmitting the infection to others for a very long period. Whereas fewer research has been done in China on the handing of sharp objects at home. Therefore, there is a need to translate and localize the Knowledge-Attitude-Practice Questionnaire regarding sharp disposal for diabetic patients to assess the current level of patient knowledge, attitudes, and practices and to improve the basis for promoting safe sharps handling practices. Methods: This investigation was a cross-sectional study. The Knowledge-Attitude-Practice Questionnaire regarding sharp disposal was localized and debugged and tested for reliability and validity, and then 334 patients were investigated by General Characteristics Questionnaire, Knowledge- Attitude-Practice Questionnaire regarding sharp disposal, and the influencing factors of practice level regarding sharp disposal of patients were analyzed. Results: The Cronbach's α value of the attitude section was 0.864 and the content validity index was 0.923. The knowledge and practice sections are in line with continental language conventions and are easy to understand without any ambiguity. The majority (52%) of the participants had poor knowledge and a neutral attitude toward disposing of sharp objects. Sharps disposal practices among diabetes mellitus patients were poor since about 90% of patients dispose of their used sharps directly into the household waste. Furthermore, we found that level of education, knowledge and attitude were the major predictors of practices regarding sharps disposal among diabetic patients ( Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Knowledge-Attitude-Practice Questionnaire regarding sharp disposal has applicability in China. In China, current practice of disposing used sharps is improper. Additionally, the majority of the subjects had low levels of knowledge and attitudes. To raise awareness and encourage diabetic patients to follow appropriate sharps disposal practices, there needs to be ongoing education and a locally tailored safe sharp disposal alternative accessible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.