ArticlePeerJ2025
A cross-sectional study evaluating insulin injection techniques and the impact of instructions from various healthcare professionals on insulin users in the southern region of Saudi Arabia.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Implementation and evaluation of an insulin use manual in the public health system of a Peruvian Region: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is evident that proper use of the insulin injection technique (IIT) is important for optimizing the efficacy of the therapy. Despite the readily available manufacturers' instructions, healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a major role in educating patients. This study aims to investigate the knowledge, practices, and challenges faced by insulin users regarding IIT, as well as the impact of healthcare professionals' education on it. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study using a validated online questionnaire to gather demographic and clinical data, as well as the participants' knowledge, practices, and challenges related to insulin therapy. Results: The mean age of the participants was 38.25 ± 15.58 (mean ± SD) years, with a nearly equal distribution of genders. Thirty-six percent of the participants educated by the diabetes educators demonstrated an appropriate IIT, such as storage, priming the insulin pen (54%), skin folding (63%), injection hold time, and "use-by" date. Furthermore, the absence of diabetes education specialist training increases the likelihood of errors, potentially leading to a loss of glycemic control. Patients reported carrying insulin when traveling as one of the major challenges (27.9%), followed by timely injections (23.7%), priming (21.6%), and adjusting the insulin dose (16.8%). Forgetfulness (47.7%), traveling or altering the regular routine (15.5%), missing a meal (15.5%), and being overly busy (13.5%) were among the reasons for missing the insulin dose; all of which are easily manageable with proper education. Conclusion: Consistent education and re-education are necessary for the insulin users to resolve the issues associated with suboptimal IIT. The inclusion of all stakeholders in insulin therapy, particularly the diabetes education specialists, is essential. Therefore, the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia should take the initiative to ensure that appropriately trained diabetes education specialists, pharmacists, nurses and other HCPs assess and follow up on patients.
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.