A Coloured Pen Needle Education System Improves Insulin Site Rotation Habits: Results of a Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Needle reuse and repeated injection of insulin into the same site encourage lipohypertrophy. We explored the potential of coupling a novel pen needle strategy with community pharmacists to improve injection site rotation. METHODS: Between October 2018 and January 2019, adult insulin users with type 1 or 2 diabetes were enrolled by 16 community pharmacists across 7 Canadian provinces and randomized to their usual pen needles (control) or coloured pen needles packaged with education materials in boxes with reminder sound chips (intervention [mCPN]). A total of 203 individuals completed all requirements of the 30-day study. The primary outcome was a composite of the number of zones injected, the use of new injection zones if the number of zones equaled that at baseline, and the change in size of the injection area from baseline. The pharmacists completed two questionnaires, which provided insights into whether study participation elevated their comfort and confidence in providing injection site rotation counselling. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, more participants in the mCPN arm improved their site rotation practices (54.1% vs. 33.7%; P = 0.005), 15 more increased the number of injection zones used (P = 0.03), and there was less needle reuse (25% vs. 12% reduction). The pharmacists reported improved knowledge of the consequences of lipohypertrophy and the proportion who were "very comfortable" with pen needle tip selection and use rose from 31.3% pre-study to 93.8% post-study. CONCLUSION: The coloured pen needles with their education materials are a novel means of encouraging injection site rotation. Community pharmacists represent an untapped resource for improving injection self-care practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".