Talk:Needle sharing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nataliealsalek, AllisonLee 2019, Cqdang, Anisa Shoghi. Peer reviewers: Etinoco2021, MillyZhao, AlanTranasaurus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BookSmart, Pharmcontributor2017, Dlalo559.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

-We want to expand more on the Infections section because there are so many more diseases that are spread via needle sharing -We also want to write about the reasons why blood is kept fresh inside a needle, making it easier to spread diseases -We also want to talk about how to safely dispose of needles to prevent this problem -We want to include more facts about the spread of diseases via needles -We also want to discuss risk factors for needle sharingBookSmart (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmcontributor2017 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Edit 1: Overall, I thought the quality and effectiveness of your edits really improved the article, which was previously a relatively short length. I think expanding the ‘Infections’ section and adding the new ‘Risk Factors for Needle Sharing’ were the most productive additions because it’s important to state that more than just HIV can be spread via needle sharing and the risk factors for such a widespread and critical public health safety concern are important to include. The ‘Safe disposal of needles’ section was also a productive addition because although the introduction talked about the NEP, it didn’t specifically cover the details of how to dispose of needles. This is just a minor edit suggestion but I think the quality of the article can be improved if the section titles were formatted the same way. Right now, the ‘Safe disposal of needles” section title capitalizes the first word only but the ‘Risk Factors for Needle Sharing” section title capitalizes all of the words. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the edits can be improved by linking key terms to Wiki pages that already exist. For example, hyperlinking Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, sepsis, tetanus, pneumonia, subcutaneous, intramuscular, etc. so that it’s easier for a viewer to expand their understanding of the topic. I believe the draft reflects a neutral point of view – most of the edits are providing information on how to safely dispose of needles or the infections that come with needle sharing and its risk factors. However, either deleting the sentence “HIV infectivity rate of needle sharing is higher compared to HIV transmission via vaginal sex from an infected male to an uninfected female” in the ‘Infections’ section would provide a more neutral standpoint. Personally, I don’t think this fact adds anything to the article because transmission via sex for neither HBV nor HCV were mentioned. Just stating facts for HIV and from a heterosexual standpoint could come off as non-neutral. Kandyskim (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Edit 2 - Reviewing your Sources: All of the sources in the beginning of the article were excellent. They were all authoritative and legitimate sources (BBC, FDA, booklets, etc.). They were all easily accessible to the public. However, the last section of your Wiki had primary sources, which are not recommended. Especially the following areas: "Blood testing of the infected party can be conducted up to 6 months after the needle stick injury.[12] Not only are bloodborne diseases passed via needle sharing but so are other types of infections from using a dirty or dull needle. Due to the bacteria’s direct access to the blood stream, the user can acquire soft tissue and skin infections. These systemic infections may or may not be responsive to anti-biotic therapy.[12] Some of the bacterial infections associated with needle sharing include endocarditis, osteomyelitis, sepsis, tetanus, and pneumonia. Higher incidence of bacterial infections have been observed with more frequent needle injections. The most common route of injection leading to bacterial skin infections and systemic infections include subcutaneous and intramuscular route.[13]" (All the citations here are primary).

I recommend finding a literature review/Cochrane type of review that might say this information? Instead of a primary research source.

Additionally, the WHOLE section, "Risk Factors for Needle Sharing", contains solely primary literature citations, which per Wikipedia, is not allowed. I think the information written in this section can be found on WHO or the FDA regarding the statistics and facts! Or maybe in some of the previous sources used earlier in the article. Hbary (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 3: The expansion of the article provided additional insight into needle sharing. Be careful with word choice since the theme of the lack of safety in needle sharing is presented repeatedly throughout the article. For example under the heading "Safe disposal of needles," the second sentence states "Therefore, needles should be properly disposed..." and then in the third sentence it states "It is important to properly dispose of used needles...." Furthermore, repetition is also shown in the beginning of the article with the risk of hepatitis C and HIV (second sentence), and under the "Infections" heading (eighth sentence). Overall, the wikipedia article has additional, useful content. Focus on the consolidation of statements (and resources if necessary) in order to avoid repetition in the article. Ucla.cesar (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 4: Reading through the article, there doesn't seem to be evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Beyond what Hbary mentioned in sources, the majority of the sentences do seem to be attributed to a source. However, under the "Infection" heading, the first sentence, "Someone who has been injected with a medicine or drug using a syringe or needle that has been used by someone with HIV may be at risk of getting HIV as well." does not have a citation associated with it, and needs to have a source. The overall article does not seem to be anything that is pulled and copied from the source. In addition, some sentences are not cited until the use of the source has been completed. For example, under "Infections" there is this sentence: "According to a study done by New Haven Connecticut’s needle exchange program, people returning needles that had not originated from the facility had a rate up to 67.5% of showing positive for HIV. Their assumption was that people bringing in “street needles” were shared among other people prior to bringing them to the program. HIV infectivity rate of needle sharing is higher compared to HIV transmission via vaginal sex from an infected male to an uninfected female.[9]" It is not cited until the second sentence, which makes it seem like the first sentence is from the author of the article. Making sure that this is correctly cited will ensure that it is not considered plagiarism or copyrighted. Kristran (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 26 Proposed Edits

1- Add a section to explain the harm reduction measurements in different countries for this problem 2- Make some edits to improve the “Infections” section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anisa Shoghi (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Add a section describing how we can reduce needle sharing in the U.S. to prevent spread of infectious diseases AllisonLee 2019 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Make edits to the second paragraph of the introduction to include more background, such as current movements towards safe needle sharing practices Cqdang (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CP 133 2019 Group 25 Peer Reviews

Part I: Group 26 has set attainable goals and achieved many of them. They have presented their information in a concise manner that makes it easier for the public to understand. Part II: This group kept a neutral tone throughout the article, cited there sources adequately and the article devoid of any plagiarism. I think they did a great job!Clopez0204 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Part 1: I believe that Group 26's contributions have provided more information regarding harm reduction measurements in different countries for needle sharing. I like how they condensed the introduction to make it more accessible. Additionally, they were able to improve the "Infections" section, improving wording and use of language to make it more structured and readable.
Part 2: The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. There were not any areas where the author was trying to influence the reader. In fact, they removed prior wording by a previous editor that was not neutral. The authors didn’t make any claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people. Specific organizations, such as the CDC, were clearly referenced in the text. AlanTranasaurus (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Part 1: Group 26 accomplished the proposed changes they set out to do for this page. They included several citations from reliable published works, such as the CDC and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, to back up their claims. The addition of the new “Harm Reduction” heading also provided a clear structural transition to let readers know the article would transition to another subtopic. The group also seems to have made many edits to the page which contributes to a significant improvement from what the article originally contained. Some minor things that would have been nice to see include defining NEP earlier in the article for those readers who may not necessarily know what that is. A lead section that is easy to understand, as well as a reference on where they obtained their definition on an an NEP. Other than that, I would say the article is primarily neutral and shows good improvement! Etinoco2021 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Part 2: Group 26 did a good job including a variety of sources to back up the information they provided in the article. Sources they included, such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, were all respectable organizations that provide comprehensive information on the topic. I was also able to access most of their citation sources which allowed me to read more! Etinoco2021 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)