Lori Berard1, Brett Cameron2. 1. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg Diabetes Research Group, Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Electronic address: ldberard@gmail.com. 2. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg Diabetes Research Group, Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A Canadian survey was undertaken to elucidate injection techniques in the population of the country with diabetes and to make appropriate revisions to the 2011 Canadian Forum for Injection Technique recommendations. METHODS: The study involved 503 participants (25% with type 1 diabetes; 75% with type 2 diabetes) from 55 diabetes education centres across Canada. They completed a survey regarding injection technique (i.e. needle length, angle of insertion, incidence of lipohypertrophy, injection routine). Healthcare professionals at the centres also completed a survey regarding their patients' injection techniques. To be eligible for the study, participants had injected either insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for at least 6 months prior to enrolment. RESULTS: Varying lengths of needles were used for injections; however, 45.3% of participants had changed needle lengths since they had begun injecting. The vast majority of participants (80.4%) injected medication into the abdomen; 36.6% had no explicit injection routine, whereas 31.4% injected into the same site at the same time each day. Overall, 24.6% of patients observed lipohypertrophy at injection sites, while only 13.3% of diabetes educators observed the same complication. CONCLUSIONS: The survey allowed for a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian patients and clinicians in the treatment of diabetes, particularly with respect to injection practices and procedures.
OBJECTIVE: A Canadian survey was undertaken to elucidate injection techniques in the population of the country with diabetes and to make appropriate revisions to the 2011 Canadian Forum for Injection Technique recommendations. METHODS: The study involved 503 participants (25% with type 1 diabetes; 75% with type 2 diabetes) from 55 diabetes education centres across Canada. They completed a survey regarding injection technique (i.e. needle length, angle of insertion, incidence of lipohypertrophy, injection routine). Healthcare professionals at the centres also completed a survey regarding their patients' injection techniques. To be eligible for the study, participants had injected either insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for at least 6 months prior to enrolment. RESULTS: Varying lengths of needles were used for injections; however, 45.3% of participants had changed needle lengths since they had begun injecting. The vast majority of participants (80.4%) injected medication into the abdomen; 36.6% had no explicit injection routine, whereas 31.4% injected into the same site at the same time each day. Overall, 24.6% of patients observed lipohypertrophy at injection sites, while only 13.3% of diabetes educators observed the same complication. CONCLUSIONS: The survey allowed for a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian patients and clinicians in the treatment of diabetes, particularly with respect to injection practices and procedures.