A Valuable Qualitative Meta‐Synthesis on Needlestick Injuries: Strengths, Limitations and Implications

I have read with interest the research of Alwin (Issac et al. 2026), who have made rigorous and insightful contributions to occupational health research. As an important occupational hazard affecting millions of healthcare workers worldwide, needlestick injuries require a comprehensive understanding of their multifactorial nature. This meta-analysis integrates qualitative evidence from seven countries and supplements key research empirical evidence. The study focuses on the perspective of medical staff, deeply analysing the human, systemic and environmental dimensions involved in needlestick injuries, providing practical guidance for policy makers and medical institutions. The advantages of this study are worth noting. Firstly, the research methodology is rigorous and standardised: following the ENTREQ guidelines, using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for quality assessment, and conducting systematic searches through six major databases to ensure the transparency and reliability of the research. By integrating data from 140 participants from different professions and scenarios, the author captured a wide range of practical experiences, enhancing the generalizability of the research findings. The study identified 13 themes and categorised them into three core areas: causes, immediate responses and preventive measures. A clear and orderly analytical framework was constructed, simplifying the complex relationships between individual behaviour, organisational policies and environmental factors. The research results have formed a meaningful correspondence and expansion with existing literature. Listing ‘unpredictable patient movement’ and ‘excessive workload’ as the main causes is consistent with multiple global studies emphasising the impact of situational stressors on needlestick injuries. Similarly, research has found that despite the existence of safety regulations, ‘negligent attitudes’ and ‘needle retraction’ behaviours still persist, highlighting the gap between knowledge and practice, and this critical issue requires targeted intervention measures. The authors exploration of immediate reactions, particularly the fear of being criticised and emotional distress, reveals the psychological trauma caused by needlestick injuries, which often lead to underreporting and long-term mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. This attention to psychological impact enriches the traditional research on needlestick injuries that focuses on physical health risks. The preventive measures proposed in the study, including preventive vigilance, continuous on-the-job training, and fostering a nonpunitive work environment, are both practical and evidence-based. Call for case-based practical training to address the inherent limitations of theoretical education; emphasising the widespread use of safety engineering equipment responds to the reality of resource scarcity in low—and middle-income countries. It is worth noting that the author emphasises that a supportive work culture is the foundation for improving reporting rates, and the increase in reporting rates is crucial for identifying trends and implementing effective prevention strategies. This is consistent with recent research emphasising that psychological security can reduce underreporting and promote organisational learning. Although the study is comprehensive, there are still several aspects that can enhance its applicability. Firstly, the included studies cover seven countries, but there are differences in medical infrastructure, resource accessibility and cultural norms in different regions, which may affect the transferability of the research results. For example, the shortage of security equipment may be more severe in low-income areas than in high-income countries, but this meta-analysis did not explicitly explore how context-specific factors affect the effectiveness of preventive measures (Rodgers et al. 2025). Future research can incorporate situational analysis to tailor intervention plans for different healthcare systems. Secondly, the study focuses on the perspective of healthcare professionals, but does not include the voices of patients or policymakers. Patients' understanding of their role in preventing needlestick injuries can provide reference for patient education initiatives, while policymakers' insights on resource allocation and policy implementation can help translate research results into practice. Incorporating these stakeholders into future qualitative research will enable a more comprehensive understanding of needle stick injury prevention issues (Zarei et al. 2025). Thirdly, the author points out that ‘qualitative data interpretation may be subjective’. Despite the use of multiple evaluators and consensus-based topic extraction methods to reduce this risk, providing more details about the coding process will further enhance the methodological transparency of the research. In addition, including all studies may lead to variability in the results; explaining the impact of low-quality research on meta-analysis can help readers better understand the background of research results. Despite these minor limitations, this study has made significant contributions to occupational health practices. The research results can provide guidance for the development of targeted intervention measures, such as mandatory simulation training for new medical staff, the development of standardised post needlestick counselling protocols, and the widespread use of safety engineering equipment. For policy makers, the emphasis on non-punitive reporting systems and workload management in research highlights the need for policy reform to prioritise the safety of healthcare workers over accountability. For medical institutions, research has shown that preventing needlestick injuries requires collaborative efforts from multiple aspects, while addressing individual behaviour, organisational policies, and environmental factors. In summary, this meta-analysis is a valuable resource for all those committed to reducing needlestick injuries and improving the safety of healthcare workers. By focusing on the practical experience of medical staff, the author provides a people-oriented perspective, enriches quantitative data, and provides a basis for practical and evidence-based solutions. I encourage the author to continue research in this field, especially exploring scenario-specific intervention measures and inviting different stakeholders to participate to ensure that prevention strategies are inclusive and sustainable. Yijia Ren and Sanglin Zhao: Conception, design, and writing original draft; all authors were involved in the final approval of the manuscript. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.