ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
A Cross-Sectional Survey on Occupational Blood and Body Fluid Exposure Risk in a Tertiary Hospital in East Malaysia.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational Disease and Injury in Malaysia: A Thematic Review of Literature from 2016 to 2021.Journal of environmental and public health · 2023Review
- The Prevalence of Occupational Accidents and the Associated Factors Among Janitorial Staff at a University Teaching Hospital in South Ethiopia.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimHealthcare workers (HCWs) routinely experience occupational blood and body fluid exposure (OBBE), including percutaneous injury and splash exposure to non-intact skin. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of OBBE and identify associated risk factors.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed on 334 HCWs at 9 workstations. Data were collected with a self-administered questionnaire that consisted of four parts: sociodemographic variables, work-related information, knowledge about needle stick and sharps injury and splash exposure, and information regarding previous OBBE incidents. The data were analyzed by SPSS version 22.0 software.
findingsThe prevalence of OBBE was 25.1% (95% confidence interval: 20.6-30.2), mostly due to percutaneous injuries, which were not reported to authorities. The highest proportions were among nurses and those working in the medical ward. Needle recapping practices were associated with almost a four-times higher risk of OBBE compared to no-recapping practices. HCWs who did not have any infection prevention training had a three-times higher risk of OBBE.
conclusionFactors associated with OBBE are unsafe work practices, inadequate infection prevention training, and lack of knowledge regarding blood-borne infection. There is a need for more training and increased awareness about the risks of OBBE to reduce unsafe practices.
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.