ArticleBMC public health2026
Occupational health risks and working conditions of sanitation workers in Nepal: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid increase in global consumption has led to a corresponding rise in waste production, intensifying the burden on sanitation workers (SW), whose work is of great importance to public health and prevents environmental pollution by ensuring proper waste disposal. The aim of this study was to assess the working conditions and explore the health status of SW in Nepal, and to identify risk factors associated with occupational health issues.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 737 SW included by convenience at a health camp for SW performed in five major municipalities of Nepal. A structured questionnaire was employed to collect data on sociodemographic factors, working conditions, and health issues. The SW were categorized into four groups based on type of work they performed, 1) collectors, who collect the garbage from the streets and load onto transport vehicles, 2) sweepers, who sweep the streets with brooms, 3) pickers, who sort through the garbage at the dumping sites, and 4) a reference group, that consisted of drivers and administrative staff without strenuous work or direct exposure to garbage. Data was introduced to STATA 18 and analyzed using Pearson's chi-square test and logistic regression.
resultsThe median age of participants was 32 years, and most participants were male, the educational level was low. Compared to the reference group, pickers had less access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and practiced poorer hygiene. Pickers experienced more symptoms related to dental problems and skin cuts, while collectors experienced more skin cuts and musculoskeletal problems. Sweepers reported lower rates of heat stress and occupational training than the remaining groups.
conclusionsPickers reported the highest risk of skin cuts and dental problems. Collectors reported higher risk of skin cuts and musculoskeletal problems. Pickers also reported the lowest rates of access to PPE, sanitary materials, and water, while collectors reported greater access to relevant vaccinations. These findings indicate unequal access to preventative measures across all types of SW.
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.