الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 131 |  |  |
| | | from | 131 | | |
Abstract
Sharps were generated in household and community settings from diabetic patients who are using insulin for their treatment. Improper sharps waste disposal has been described as an area of public health, environmental health, and economic concern; in particular, the number of diabetic patients is steadily rising around the world, especially in Egypt.
This study aimed to assess the effect of an environmental educational program on the knowledge and practices of diabetic patients regarding sharps waste disposal at home; in Alexandria. This objective was achieved through a nonequivalent quasi-experimental study by using a predesigned and precoded interview questionnaire, which was used as a tool to assess the knowledge and practices toward safe sharps disposal at baseline and post-intervention in the intervention and non-intervention groups and to compare visits within each group. The study was conducted through multiple field visits for the implementation of an environmental educational program and the collection of data at El Horraya diabetic center in Alexandria affiliated to HIO. In the post-intervention phase at two- and four-month intervals, the researcher received the filled containers and supplied intervention group with new containers and syringes or insulin pen needles, and assessed the post-intervention knowledge and practice.
The results of the recent study revealed the following:
There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and non-intervention groups regarding sociodemographic characteristics.
The current study demonstrated that one or more comorbid conditions affected 64% of the patients; hypertension and cardiac conditions were the most common and 5% of participants suffered from hepatitis C virus (HCV).
The majority of the patients (67%) had diabetes for longer than 10 years, and 63% had used insulin for at least 5 years.
At the baseline visit (pre-intervention), the study findings demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in the knowledge levels and scores between intervention and non-intervention groups with almost the same levels and median knowledge score (60), which corresponds to the fair knowledge category for both groups
The first post-intervention visit results showed that the participants of the intervention group had a higher median knowledge score of 80 (80-90) which indicated a good knowledge level in both analyses, as compared to the non-intervention group with 70 (60-90) and 75 (60-90) according to intent to treat analysis and per protocol analysis, respectively, and the difference reached statistical significance (<.001).
At the second post-intervention visit, there was a higher median knowledge score of 80 (80-90) in the intervention group than that of the non-intervention group which registered 70 (60-90) according to both analyses.
There were statistically significant differences between the intervention and non-intervention groups regarding the percentage of correct answers to the first, second, and tenth questions (significantly impacted by the educational program) which covered three concepts: what should be done regarding the use of insulin syringes during presence outside home, the best way to dispose of used insulin needles and syringes at the home, and the best place to store the insulin syringes.
Regarding practice assessment, the percentage of individuals who disposed of their insulin syringes or pen needles at medical facilities began to differ significantly from visit 2, with the intervention group consistently surpassing the non-intervention group.
The practice levels and scores of both groups were almost the same at the baseline visit, which corresponds to the poor practice scale. At the subsequent two visits, there were significant differences in participants’ practice levels and scores, with the intervention group significantly outperforming the non-intervention group in both measures.
The overall practice scores for both groups were the same at baseline and were 4.4/16, which corresponds to a poor practice level. At the end of the program, there was a significant difference in the participants’ overall practice scores, with the intervention group significantly outperforming the non-intervention group and registered a score of 14 which matched the good practice level, while the non-intervention group stopped unchanged at 4.4, which corresponds to a poor practice level.