» Articles » PMID: 34674781

Comparing Risk Changes of Needlestick Injuries Between Countries Adopted and Not Adopted the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act: A Meta-analysis

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether countries that adopted the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (NSPA) achieved a reduced risk of needlestick injuries (NSIs).

Method: In this meta-analysis, 3 international databases (Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE EBSCO) and 1 Chinese database (Airiti Library) were searched using appropriate keywords to retrieve relevant articles, including multiyear NSI incidences that were published after 2010. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies was used to evaluate article prevalence. A binary random-effects model was used to estimate risk ratio as summary effect. A log scale was used to evaluate differences in risk ratios of NSIs between countries that adopted versus those that did not adopt the NSPA.

Results: In total, 11 articles were included in the meta-analysis from 9 countries, and NSI incidence rates were surveyed between 1993 and 2016. The risk ratios of NSIs in countries with and without the NSPA were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.91) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.85-1.12), respectively, and the ratio of risk ratios was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.65-0.98). Reduction in NSI incidence was more prominent in nurses than in physicians.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the mandatory use of safety-engineered medical devices in countries that adopted the NSPA had lower NSI incidence in healthcare workers compared with countries without needlestick safety and prevention regulatory policies. Further studies are needed to develop preventive strategies to protect against NSIs in physicians, which should be incorporated into the standards of care established by national regulatory agencies.

Citing Articles

Needlestick Injuries With Insulin Injections: Risk Factors, Concerns, and Implications of the Use of Safety Pen Needles in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Mohamed M, Tandon N, Kim Y, Kopp I, Tanaka N, Mikamo H J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023; 19(1):169-178.

PMID: 37475682 PMC: 11688701. DOI: 10.1177/19322968231186402.


Needlestick and sharps' injury in healthcare students: Prevalence, knowledge, attitude and practice.

Datar U, Kamat M, Khairnar M, Wadgave U, Desai K J Family Med Prim Care. 2023; 11(10):6327-6333.

PMID: 36618215 PMC: 9810938. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_155_22.

References
1.
Phillips E, Conaway M, Parker G, Perry J, Jagger J . Issues in understanding the impact of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act on hospital sharps injuries. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013; 34(9):935-9. DOI: 10.1086/671733. View

2.
Mitchell A, Parker G, Kanamori H, Rutala W, Weber D . Comparing non-safety with safety device sharps injury incidence data from two different occupational surveillance systems. J Hosp Infect. 2017; 96(2):195-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.02.021. View

3.
Imrey P . Limitations of Meta-analyses of Studies With High Heterogeneity. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(1):e1919325. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19325. View

4.
Grimmond T . UK safety-engineered device use: changes since the 2013 sharps regulations. Occup Med (Lond). 2019; 69(5):352-358. DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqz087. View

5.
Altman D, Bland J . Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003; 326(7382):219. PMC: 1125071. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.219. View