Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review

Authors: Rami Tarabay, Rola El Rassi, Abeer Dakik, Alain Harb, Rami A. Ballout, Batoul Diab, Selma Khamassi, Elie A. Akl

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Adopting technologies such as injection safety devices in healthcare settings can enhance injection safety. Developing guidelines for appropriate adoption of such technologies need to consider factors beyond evidence for their health effects. The objective of this study is to systematically review the published literature for evidence among healthcare workers and patients about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings.

Methods

We included both qualitative and quantitative studies conducted with the general public, patients, and healthcare workers, administrators, or policy makers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and CENTRAL. We used a duplicate and independent approach to title and abstract screening, full text screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment.

Results

Out of a total of 6568 identified citations, we judged fourteen studies as eligible for this systematic review. All these studies were surveys, conducted with healthcare workers in high-income countries. We did not identify any qualitative study, or a study of the general public, patients, healthcare administrators or policy makers. We did not identify any study assessing knowledge, or values assigned to outcomes relevant to injection safety devices. Each of the included studies suffered from methodological limitations, which lowers our confidence in their findings. Based on the findings of six studies, the injection safety devices were generally perceived as easy to use and as an improvement compared with conventional syringes. Some of these studies reported few technical problems while using the devices. In three studies assessing perceived safety, the majority of participants judged the devices as safe. Two studies reported positive perceptions of healthcare workers regarding patient tolerance of these injection safety devices. One study found that less than half the nurses felt comfortable using the insulin pens. Findings from four studies assessing preference and satisfaction were not consistent.

Conclusions

This systematic review identified evidence that injection safety devices are generally perceived as easy to use, safe, and tolerated by patients. There were few reports of technical problems while using the devices and some discomfort by nurses using the insulin pens.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Chapter 4: Quantifying Selected Major Risks to Health. In: The world health report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. 2002. p. 47–98. World Health Organization. Chapter 4: Quantifying Selected Major Risks to Health. In: The world health report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. 2002. p. 47–98.
2.
go back to reference Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:482–90.CrossRefPubMed Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:482–90.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Dziekan G, Chisholm D, Johns B, Rovira J, Hutin YJF. The cost-effectiveness of policies for the safe and appropriate use of injection in healthcare settings. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81:277–85.PubMedPubMedCentral Dziekan G, Chisholm D, Johns B, Rovira J, Hutin YJF. The cost-effectiveness of policies for the safe and appropriate use of injection in healthcare settings. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81:277–85.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Adams D, Elliott TS. A comparative user evaluation of three needle-protective devices. Br J Nurs. 2003;12:470–4.CrossRefPubMed Adams D, Elliott TS. A comparative user evaluation of three needle-protective devices. Br J Nurs. 2003;12:470–4.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Pugliese G, Germanson TP, Bartley J, Luca J, Lamerato L, Cox J, Jagger J. Evaluating sharps safety devices: meeting OSHA’s intent. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:456–8.CrossRefPubMed Pugliese G, Germanson TP, Bartley J, Luca J, Lamerato L, Cox J, Jagger J. Evaluating sharps safety devices: meeting OSHA’s intent. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:456–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, Rind D, Montori VM, Brito JP, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:726–35.CrossRefPubMed Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, Rind D, Montori VM, Brito JP, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:726–35.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, Nasser M, Meerpohl J, Post PN, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:719–25.CrossRefPubMed Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, Nasser M, Meerpohl J, Post PN, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:719–25.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Adams D, Elliott TS. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64:50–5.CrossRefPubMed Adams D, Elliott TS. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64:50–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Alvarado-Ramy F BE, Short LJ, Srivastava PU, Henry K, Mendelson M, Gerberding JL, Delclos GL, Campbell S, Solomon R, et al. A comprehensive approach to percutaneous injury prevention during phlebotomy: results of a multicenter study, 1993-1995. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:97-104. Alvarado-Ramy F BE, Short LJ, Srivastava PU, Henry K, Mendelson M, Gerberding JL, Delclos GL, Campbell S, Solomon R, et al. A comprehensive approach to percutaneous injury prevention during phlebotomy: results of a multicenter study, 1993-1995. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:97-104.
11.
go back to reference Butler R LP, Mannix S, Brewster J, Mueller-Beckhaus A, MacLean D, Lloyd A, Rentz AM. Evaluation of user preference for a needleless factor VIII delivery device for haemophilia patients. J Drug Assess. 2005;8:17-32. Butler R LP, Mannix S, Brewster J, Mueller-Beckhaus A, MacLean D, Lloyd A, Rentz AM. Evaluation of user preference for a needleless factor VIII delivery device for haemophilia patients. J Drug Assess. 2005;8:17-32.
12.
go back to reference Davis EM, Bebee A, Crawford L, Destache C. Nurse satisfaction using insulin pens in hospitalized patients. Diab Educ. 2009;35:799–809.CrossRef Davis EM, Bebee A, Crawford L, Destache C. Nurse satisfaction using insulin pens in hospitalized patients. Diab Educ. 2009;35:799–809.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ford J, Phillips P. An evaluation of sharp safety hypodermic needle devices. Nurs Stand. 2011;25:39–44.CrossRefPubMed Ford J, Phillips P. An evaluation of sharp safety hypodermic needle devices. Nurs Stand. 2011;25:39–44.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ford J PP. An evaluation of sharp safety blood evacuation devices. Nurs Stand. 2011;25:41-7. Ford J PP. An evaluation of sharp safety blood evacuation devices. Nurs Stand. 2011;25:41-7.
15.
go back to reference Wolfrum J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free I.V. system. Nurs Manage. 1994;25:33-5. Wolfrum J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free I.V. system. Nurs Manage. 1994;25:33-5.
16.
go back to reference Mulherin S, Rickman LS, Jackson MM. Initial worker evaluation of a new safety syringe. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:593–4.CrossRefPubMed Mulherin S, Rickman LS, Jackson MM. Initial worker evaluation of a new safety syringe. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:593–4.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Orenstein R, Reynolds L, Karabaic M, Lamb A, Markowitz SM, Wong ES. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control. 1995;23:344–51.CrossRefPubMed Orenstein R, Reynolds L, Karabaic M, Lamb A, Markowitz SM, Wong ES. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control. 1995;23:344–51.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Prunet B, Meaudre E, Montcriol A, Asencio Y, Bordes J, Lacroix G, Kaiser E. A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:155–8.CrossRefPubMed Prunet B, Meaudre E, Montcriol A, Asencio Y, Bordes J, Lacroix G, Kaiser E. A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:155–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Rivers DL, Aday LA, Frankowski RF, Felknor S, White D, Nichols B. Predictors of nurses’ acceptance of an intravenous catheter safety device. Nurs Res. 2003;52:249–55.CrossRefPubMed Rivers DL, Aday LA, Frankowski RF, Felknor S, White D, Nichols B. Predictors of nurses’ acceptance of an intravenous catheter safety device. Nurs Res. 2003;52:249–55.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Vaudelle-Malbos C, Gury C, Proust G, Brossard D, Vu-Thi P, Buonaccorsi A. Sterile needleprick prevention devices: Assessment after recording of accidents in two hospitals. [Italian] Dispositifs medicaux steriles de protection des piqures: Evaluation apres recensement des accidents dans deux hopitaux. Arch Mal Prof. 1996;57:508–18. Vaudelle-Malbos C, Gury C, Proust G, Brossard D, Vu-Thi P, Buonaccorsi A. Sterile needleprick prevention devices: Assessment after recording of accidents in two hospitals. [Italian] Dispositifs medicaux steriles de protection des piqures: Evaluation apres recensement des accidents dans deux hopitaux. Arch Mal Prof. 1996;57:508–18.
21.
go back to reference Casey AL ET. The usability and acceptability of a needleless connector system. Br J Nurs. 2007;16:267-71. Casey AL ET. The usability and acceptability of a needleless connector system. Br J Nurs. 2007;16:267-71.
22.
go back to reference English JFB. Reported hospital needlestick injuries in relation to knowledge/skill, design, and management problems. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:259–64.CrossRefPubMed English JFB. Reported hospital needlestick injuries in relation to knowledge/skill, design, and management problems. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:259–64.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Hirayama T, Kuroyama M. Study on usefulness of prefilled syringe containing influenza vaccine preparations. [Japanese]. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2009;37:737–44. Hirayama T, Kuroyama M. Study on usefulness of prefilled syringe containing influenza vaccine preparations. [Japanese]. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2009;37:737–44.
24.
go back to reference Jeanes A. Zero-Stik-Safety Syringe: an automatic safety syringe. Br J Nurs. 1999;8:530–1. 534-535.CrossRefPubMed Jeanes A. Zero-Stik-Safety Syringe: an automatic safety syringe. Br J Nurs. 1999;8:530–1. 534-535.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Kuroyama M, Hirayama T. Usefulness of prefilled normal saline syringe - Questionnaire survey and ease of handling and use. [Japanese]. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2006;34:489–97. Kuroyama M, Hirayama T. Usefulness of prefilled normal saline syringe - Questionnaire survey and ease of handling and use. [Japanese]. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2006;34:489–97.
26.
go back to reference Oyer D, Narendran P, Qvist M, Niemeyer M, Nadeau DA. Ease of use and preference of a new versus widely available prefilled insulin pen assessed by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8:1259–69.CrossRefPubMed Oyer D, Narendran P, Qvist M, Niemeyer M, Nadeau DA. Ease of use and preference of a new versus widely available prefilled insulin pen assessed by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8:1259–69.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Pfutzner A, Bailey T, Campos C, Kahn D, Ambers E, Niemeyer M, Guerrero G, Klonoff D, Nayberg I. Accuracy and preference assessment of prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe with diabetes patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29:475–81.CrossRefPubMed Pfutzner A, Bailey T, Campos C, Kahn D, Ambers E, Niemeyer M, Guerrero G, Klonoff D, Nayberg I. Accuracy and preference assessment of prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe with diabetes patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29:475–81.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt Jr WL. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2008;42:446–55.CrossRefPubMed Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt Jr WL. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2008;42:446–55.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Guerlain S, Wang L, Hugine A. Intelliject’s novel epinephrine autoinjector: Sharps injury prevention validation and comparable analysis with EpiPen and Twinject. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;105:480–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Guerlain S, Wang L, Hugine A. Intelliject’s novel epinephrine autoinjector: Sharps injury prevention validation and comparable analysis with EpiPen and Twinject. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;105:480–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Quiroga R, Halkyer P, Gil F, Nelson C, Kristensen D. A prefilled injection device for outreach tetanus immunization by Bolivian traditional birth attendants. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 1998;4:20–5.CrossRefPubMed Quiroga R, Halkyer P, Gil F, Nelson C, Kristensen D. A prefilled injection device for outreach tetanus immunization by Bolivian traditional birth attendants. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 1998;4:20–5.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Tsu VD, Luu HTT, Mai TTP. Does a novel prefilled injection device make postpartum oxytocin easier to administer? Results from midwives in Vietnam. Midwifery. 2009;25:461–5.CrossRefPubMed Tsu VD, Luu HTT, Mai TTP. Does a novel prefilled injection device make postpartum oxytocin easier to administer? Results from midwives in Vietnam. Midwifery. 2009;25:461–5.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Musso R, Santoro R, Coppola A, Marcucci M, Sottilotta G, Targhetta R, Zanon E, Franchini M. Patient preference for needleless factor VIII reconstitution device: The Italian experience. Int J Gen Med. 2010;3:203–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Musso R, Santoro R, Coppola A, Marcucci M, Sottilotta G, Targhetta R, Zanon E, Franchini M. Patient preference for needleless factor VIII reconstitution device: The Italian experience. Int J Gen Med. 2010;3:203–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Peterson G, Skovlund S, Lytzen L, Nicklasson L, Liang J, Lyness W. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet (R) versus vial/syringe (Structured abstract). Diab Res Clin Pract. 2004;63:27–35.CrossRef Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Peterson G, Skovlund S, Lytzen L, Nicklasson L, Liang J, Lyness W. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet (R) versus vial/syringe (Structured abstract). Diab Res Clin Pract. 2004;63:27–35.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Vidovic N, Musso R, Klamroth R, Enriquez MM, Achilles K. Postmarketing surveillance study of KOGENATE Bayer with Bio-Set in patients with haemophilia A: Evaluation of patients’ satisfaction after switch to the new reconstitution system. Haemophilia. 2010;16:66–71.CrossRefPubMed Vidovic N, Musso R, Klamroth R, Enriquez MM, Achilles K. Postmarketing surveillance study of KOGENATE Bayer with Bio-Set in patients with haemophilia A: Evaluation of patients’ satisfaction after switch to the new reconstitution system. Haemophilia. 2010;16:66–71.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Lee JM, Botteman MF, Nicklasson L, Cobden D, Pashos CL. Needlestick injury in acute care nurses caring for patients with diabetes mellitus: A retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:741–7.CrossRefPubMed Lee JM, Botteman MF, Nicklasson L, Cobden D, Pashos CL. Needlestick injury in acute care nurses caring for patients with diabetes mellitus: A retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:741–7.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. W264.CrossRefPubMed Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. W264.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Codling ABERGEA. An evaluation of the efficacy of safer sharps devices. In: Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2012 RR914. 2012. Codling ABERGEA. An evaluation of the efficacy of safer sharps devices. In: Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2012 RR914. 2012.
Metadata
Title
Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review
Authors
Rami Tarabay
Rola El Rassi
Abeer Dakik
Alain Harb
Rami A. Ballout
Batoul Diab
Selma Khamassi
Elie A. Akl
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0505-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016 Go to the issue