ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Assessment of Knowledge about Healthcare Risk Waste Management at a Tertiary Hospital in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards Sustainable Healthcare Risk Waste Management in South Africa: A Systematic Review of Treatment Practices and Policy Gaps.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring pharmaceutical waste management in Southern Africa: a scoping review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Review
- Effective waste management in service industry: Fuzzy-based modelling approach for strategic decision-making.Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA · 2025Article
- Multi-criteria evaluation of medical waste management process under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A case study on hospitals in Turkey.Socio-economic planning sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed at assessing the knowledge about healthcare risk waste (HCRW) management among doctors, professional nurses, pharmacists and laboratory technicians, in accordance with National Environmental Management, Waste Act 59 of 2008, Constitution of South Africa and sustainable development goals (SDG). The quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted, using self-administered questionnaires and stratified random sampling was used. Data was analyzed using the descriptive and inferential statistics. One hundred and forty-four participants were included in the study. The majority 90.28% of the participants were aged 19-50 years, females (71%), professional nurses (36%), and they had 1-10 years of experience (71%). The health professionals were knowledgeable of sharps waste (89%), slightly over (52%) knew anatomical waste, whereas (27%) and (17%) knew radioactive and cytotoxic waste, respectively. Health professionals (92%) agreed that the sharps-waste container should be disposed of in a yellow bin container, at least (63%) and (27%) agreed that red liner and box should be used for both infectious non anatomical waste and for cytotoxic waste. The null hypothesis was tested on knowledge versus age, profession and gender, and evidence against it was found on waste storage period in all three variables where chi-square and Fisher exact
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.