ArticleCureus2025
Assessment of Biomedical Waste Management Practices and Risk Perception Among Healthcare Workers in South India.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Inefficient biomedical waste (BMW) management in healthcare settings can expose patients, workers, and the environment to significant risks. This study aimed to assess BMW segregation practices, occupational risk perception, training exposure, and sharps injury incidence among healthcare workers (HCWs) across multiple tertiary care hospitals in South India. Methods A cross-sectional observational study was conducted over six months across four randomly selected tertiary care teaching hospitals in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. A total of 356 healthcare workers comprising 84 (23.6%) doctors, 186 (52.2%) nurses, and 86 (24.2%) housekeeping staff were selected using stratified random sampling. Data were collected via a pre-validated, structured questionnaire (55 items), on-site observations, and semi-structured interviews. Risk perception was measured using a five-point Likert scale, and a simplified infection risk model adapted from the UK Environmental Agency was applied. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), employing chi-square tests and one-way ANOVA. Results Overall, 257 (72.1%) of participants demonstrated correct knowledge of BMW segregation protocols, with highest accuracy among nurses (142, 76.3%) and lowest among doctors (53, 63%). Field observations revealed inconsistent compliance, particularly in high-volume areas. Risk perception was highest for environmental contamination (mean score: 4.30) and waste worker exposure (4.08), but significantly lower for patients and visitors. A total of 41 sharps injuries were reported, with underreporting observed among doctors. Training participation varied significantly across roles: only 26 (31%) doctors were trained compared to 138 (74.2%) nurses and 76 (88.3%) housekeeping staff. Training was strongly associated with both risk perception and segregation accuracy (p < 0.05). Conclusion This multi-center study highlights critical gaps in BMW knowledge, risk perception, and training, particularly among doctors. Despite awareness, compliance remains inconsistent, underscoring the need for mandatory training, improved monitoring, and institution-wide reinforcement of biomedical waste protocols to reduce health and environmental hazards.
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.