ArticleHeliyon2023
A survey of bloodborne occupational exposure protection behavior among qualified Chinese midwives: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Acupuncture Physicians and Medical Students Regarding Bloodborne Occupational Exposure: A Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of surgical occupational exposures in an infectious disease hospital: a 5-year retrospective study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Trends and risk factors of bloodborne occupational exposure among healthcare workers in a Chinese tertiary hospital (2012-2022).Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bloodborne occupational exposure is a major public health concern of the China Health Commission, especially among midwives who are at high risk among healthcare workers. Knowledge of occupational exposure and appropriate protective behaviors play important roles in reducing occupational exposure. The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge and level of protection against bloodborne occupational exposure among midwives in China. Methods: This was a multi-center, cross-sectional study. Midwives from hospitals that are members of Infectious Disease Nursing Committee of Chinese Nursing Association were selected as survey participants from February 2019 to February 2022 using a judged sampling method. Data were collected by using a self-developed questionnaire for Chinese midwives to report their current knowledge and behavior related to bloodborne occupational exposure protection. Results: A total of 2850 questionnaires were distributed and 2742 valid questionnaires were obtained, resulting in an effective rate of 96.21 %. Midwives scored 2742 (6.495 ± 1.529) points for their knowledge about bloodborne occupational exposure protection, with the level and type of hospital being independent factors affecting the midwives' knowledge of bloodborne occupational exposure protection (χ2 = 27.284, P = 0.038; χ2 = 28.374, P = 0.000). Of the midwives, 1460 were qualified for bloodborne occupational exposure protection behavior, with a qualified rate of 53.25 %. Working years (χ2 = 9.372, P = 0.002) and working hours (χ2 = 13.933, P = 0.000) were also the independent factors for bloodborne occupational exposure protective behavior in midwives. Conclusion: Chinese midwives possess relatively good knowledge of bloodborne exposure protection against bloodborne infectious diseases, but their behavioral level is not optimistic. Improvements to both knowledge and behavioral level of bloodborne occupational exposure protection are necessary.
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.