ArticleCureus2020
Gauging the Effectiveness of Training Sessions Among Nurses Regarding Biomedical Waste Management: A Quasi-Experimental Study From a Developing Country.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive modeling of medical waste and a proposal to improve segregation in a peruvian hospital.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Insights of nurses regarding healthcare waste management: a cross-sectional, district-level study in hospitals selected from a peripheral region of Sri Lanka.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Predictors of biomedical waste management practices among staff nurses of a tertiary care teaching hospital in India.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Assessment of Knowledge, Practice and Attitude about Biomedical Waste Management among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19 Crises in Al-Ahsa.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Biomedical waste management (BWM) plays a crucial role in maintaining human and environmental health. Unfortunately, health-care workers (HCWs) lack the essential awareness concerning BWM and there is a dire need to adopt different strategies to improve their practices. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of training sessions among HCWs regarding biomedical waste management using a quasi-experimental study design. Methods This quasi-experimental study included a total of 64 nurses, selected with a systematic random sampling technique. Three days of structured training sessions were organized in the morning and evening shifts. Pertinently, pre-test and post-test were organized before and after the end of training sessions. Practices of nurses regarding BWM were also assessed before the training and after one month of training with the aid of a checklist. Results The low pre-test scores of the study participants elucidated insufficient knowledge regarding various aspects of BWM. After the three days of the structured training sessions, the analysis of post-test scores elucidated a marked improvement in the knowledge of the study participants. The practices of nurses regarding BWM were inappropriate; however, one month after the training sessions, the re-evaluation of practices showed a significant improvement. Conclusion The study showed that nurses had poor knowledge regarding BWM and were significantly improved on teaching interventions. An essential knowledge regarding BWM is therefore very useful for HCWs to protect themselves from infectious diseases. The inclusion of regular training sessions in the teaching curriculum can ensure adherence to guidelines for appropriate BWM. Assurance of ideal practices for BWM plays a key role in the prevention of nosocomial infection among HCWs.
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.