ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2022
Knowledge, attitude and practices on notifiable diseases among environmental health practitioners in the City of Johannesburg: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Notifiable diseases, a public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries, require mandatory reporting and play a significant role in disease prevention and control. Environmental health practitioners are responsible for reporting and investigating notifiable diseases. Aim: The study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices on notifiable diseases among environmental health practitioners within a metropolitan municipality. Setting: The study was conducted in the seven regions of the City of Johannesburg in Gauteng province, South Africa. Methods: A cross-sectional and descriptive study was used. One hundred and thirty-five participants were randomly sampled. The data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire and analysed using version 27 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. All ethical considerations such as permissions, ethical clearance and informed consent were observed throughout the study. Results: The majority of participants ( Conclusion: The results could facilitate a knowledge improvement programme that includes a structured training programme and standard operating procedures. The study results cannot be generalised to the whole country; hence, the recommendation of a national survey on similar phenomena should be considered. Contribution: The study findings could assist in improving the role of environmental health services in reporting and investigating notifiable diseases.
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.