Investigating needle stick injuries: Incidence, knowledge and perception among South Jordanian nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Needle stick injury (NSI) is one of the major causes of blood borne infections in the present day healthcare system. Among healthcare professionals, nursing students will most likely be exposed to this dilemma. Interventions like institutionalizing educational programs to produce awareness and knowledge among nurses can depict positive outcomes in changing perceptions toward safety measures. This study aimed to investigate the incidence, perspectives, views, perceptions, and knowledge of NSIs among nursing students studying at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University. The sample population consisted of all undergraduate nursing students from second to fourth academic levels at the university who consented to participate in this study. The mode of data collection utilized a self-structured questionnaire apportioned into four parts. The first portion of the questionnaire presented the socio-demographic details of the respondents. The second part of the questionnaire demonstrated questions about needle stick incidences at the clinical units of the participants; frequency of occurrences (i.e., number, nature, and rationale); place of occurrence; and, whether the event was reported to higher authorities. The third part of the questionnaire entailed queries associated with the knowledge of the students with respect to needle stick injury. The last part focused on the student's knowledge and perception on the risks associated to needle sticks injuries and the relative precautions to prevent such. The results showed that most of the students had positive perception of NSIs; while two thirds of the student nurses experienced NSI with increasing number of injured nurses occurring among second year students. This is due to the lack of knowledge regarding universal precaution guidelines and acupuncture safety device. Nursing students are at risks of getting infection. Proper steps are needed to promote awareness of NSI as well as the dangers and prevention from such events.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".