ArticleCureus2026
Occupational Health and Safety Practices Among Primary Healthcare Workers in Bangladesh: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income countries are exposed to substantial occupational risks; however, evidence regarding comprehensive occupational health and safety (OHS) practices in primary healthcare settings remains limited. This study assessed OHS practices and explored factors associated with adequate OHS among primary HCWs in Bangladesh. Methods We conducted a facility-based cross-sectional study among 242 HCWs in eight sub-district hospitals in Bagerhat district, Bangladesh, in 2021. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire covering sociodemographic characteristics, infection prevention practices, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, working conditions, and occupational health services. A composite OHS practice index was constructed using eight binary indicators: handwashing before patient contact, handwashing after patient contact, handwashing for at least 30 seconds, mask use, glove use, goggle use, gown use, and receipt of PPE training. Working conditions, including rest during duty and meal availability, were assessed separately and were not included in the composite index. The total score ranged from 0 to 8, and a score of ≥5 was used as a predefined pragmatic threshold for meeting the composite criterion. Descriptive analysis and bivariable logistic regression were performed to explore associations with age, sex, profession, department, working hours, rest during duty, drinking water availability, training facilities, preventive medical check-up, and accident reporting system. Results Among the 242 participants, 190 were female (78.5%) and 174 were nurses (71.9%), indicating a demographically and professionally homogeneous sample. Hand hygiene before and after patient contact was reported by 214 participants (88.4%) and 238 participants (98.3%), respectively, although only 80 participants (33.1%) reported handwashing for at least 30 seconds. Mask use was reported by all participants (100.0%), while glove use was reported by 194 participants (80.2%). Only four participants (1.7%) reported using goggles and gowns, and 67 participants (27.7%) reported receiving PPE training. Less than half reported adequate rest during duty (47.1%), and none reported access to meals during duty. The mean OHS composite score was 4.31 ± 0.93. Using the predefined threshold of ≥5, 87 participants (36.0%) met the OHS composite criterion. No statistically significant associations were identified in bivariable analysis. Conclusions Only about one-third of HCWs met the predefined OHS composite criterion, highlighting important gaps in selected occupational safety measures, particularly PPE training, handwashing duration, and use of protective equipment beyond masks and gloves. The absence of significant predictors should be interpreted cautiously because the study was underpowered relative to the calculated sample size, used purposive sampling, and included a homogeneous sample dominated by female nurses. The findings should also be interpreted within the 2021 COVID-19 pandemic context, which may have influenced reported safety practices. Future studies should include larger and more occupationally diverse samples to better distinguish individual-level and institutional determinants of OHS practice in primary healthcare settings.
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.