↓ Skip to main content

Indian Injection Technique Study: Population Characteristics and Injection Practices

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Indian Injection Technique Study: Population Characteristics and Injection Practices
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13300-017-0243-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjay Kalra, Ambrish Mithal, Rakesh Sahay, Mathew John, A. G. Unnikrishnan, Banshi Saboo, Sujoy Ghosh, Debmalya Sanyal, Laurence J. Hirsch, Vandita Gupta, Kenneth W. Strauss

Abstract

It was estimated that 3.2 million Indians with diabetes injected insulin in 2010, but little is known about the techniques used. In 2015 we conducted an injection technique questionnaire (ITQ) survey throughout India involving 1011 patients. Indian values were compared with those from 41 other countries participating in the ITQ, known here as rest of world (ROW). Mean HbA1c was 8.6. BMI values in India were 1.5-3 units lower than in ROW depending on patient group, meaning the risk of intramuscular (IM) injections is high in India. The mean total daily dose (TDD) of insulin was lower in every category of Indian patient than in ROW, perhaps reflecting the lower BMI. Needle reuse, whether with pens or syringes, is much higher in India than ROW and so is the number of times the needle is used. The majority (56.8%) of Indian insulin users performed only 2 injections/day as opposed to ROW where 45% of patients performed at least 4 injections/day. Indian patients inject insulin in the thighs more often than patients in ROW, a site where IM injections are more risky. Many patients do not have proper access to sharps containers or have other risk factors that could lead to blood-borne pathogen spread. More than 60% of used sharps in India go into the rubbish, with nearly 12% not even having the minimum protection of a cap. The shortest needles are very common in India; however, the level of needle reuse is high. Multiple daily injections therapy is not as common in India as ROW. More focus needs to be given to dwell times under the skin, reconstitution of cloudy insulins, skinfolds, and safe sharps disposal.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 26%
Student > Postgraduate 4 21%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,012,983
of 9,201,335 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#189
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,776
of 254,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,201,335 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.