Predictors of perception on risk of needlestick injury among house officers in northeastern Peninsular Malaysia


Abstract

Background. House officers (HOs) are at significant risk for needlestick injuries (NSIs), making it crucial to understand the factors that influence their perception of NSI risk in order to develop effective prevention strategies. Given the high prevalence of NSIs in Malaysia, this study aimed to assess the perception of NSI risk and its predictors among HOs in northeastern Peninsular Malaysia.
Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study with a random sample of 176 HOs, utilizing a structured questionnaire to gather data on demographic factors, work experience, training, number of postings, history of NSIs, and individual risk perception. Using linear regression analysis, we identified several significant predictors of NSI risk perception among HOs.
Results. The overall mean perception score was 47.6, indicating a collective awareness of NSI risk. Key predictors included gender (b = 1.96; p = 0.002), working experience (b = 2.93; p < 0.001), attendance at health education sessions on NSIs (b = 4.42; p < 0.001), and a history of NSIs (b = 4.96; p < 0.001).
Conclusions. This study highlights critical factors that shape HOs' perceptions of NSI risk, demonstrating that targeted training programs, levels of experience, and safety measures significantly influence these perceptions. Understanding these factors is essential for developing tailored interventions and educational initiatives aimed at enhancing occupational safety and improving practices among house officers.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].