MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766035640 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v8n2p83

Evidence calls for practice change in intramuscular injection techniques

2017· article· en· W2766035640 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntramuscular injections and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careIntramuscular injectionMedicineInjection siteSocial mediaDescriptive statisticsNursingFamily medicineInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Intramuscular (IM) injections are administered to patients in all health care settings. Even though this procedure is invasive and the evidence supporting the process of administration is extensive, techniques and procedures vary throughout the literature and in practice. The purpose of this descriptive correlational study was to 1) investigate the literature on current evidence-based IM injection procedures pertaining to gender, patient weight, injection site, needle length, and technique, 2) compare surveyed healthcare personnel self-reported IM injection practices, and 3) query respondents on informational resources they access, continuing education they receive, and their years of healthcare experience and higher education.Methods: The Intramuscular Injection Questionnaire (IIQ) was sent via email to various professional healthcare facilities and their respective social media sites. Two hundred and six (206) healthcare personnel of various healthcare backgrounds and educational levels accessed the IIQ via a link to Qualtrics software. SPSS Version 24 was used for data analysis.Results: Most respondents were registered nurses with 4-15+ years of experience. Seventy-eight percent of respondents considered their IM injection knowledge at above average or expert levels. Gender was not considered an important factor when selecting an injection needle among 75% of participants. Of all respondents, 61% use z-track technique, 59% use the ventrogluteal site and 34% always bunch or stretch the skin during injection. IM injection education was not provided in 75% of healthcare facilities.Conclusions: IM injection practices vary among respondents and in the literature; some reported practices are contrary to current evidence-based practice. While the evidence provides some sound recommendations, some procedures are not well-documented or supported including in nursing texts. Nurses and other healthcare personnel must critically analyze the site, depth, needle, volume, medication, vaccine, and whether to bunch or stretch, according to evidence-based practice. Healthcare facilities should provide IM injection education routinely to ensure safe practices. Future studies (Level 1 and 2) are needed to further demonstrate the best evidence leading to safe and effective IM injections.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it