ArticlePublic health challenges2026
Healthcare Waste Generation Rates in the Three Categories of Public Healthcare Facilities in Malawi.
Article in Public health challenges, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The assessment of the waste generation rate is an initial and critical step in addressing poor healthcare waste management practices. Aim: This study aimed to determine the healthcare waste generation rates in primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare facilities in Malawi. Methods: This cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted in two tertiary (Kamuzu and Mzuzu Central Hospital [MCH]), secondary (Nkhata Bay and Rumphi), and primary (Bolero and Chintheche Rural) healthcare facilities. The broad categorization of healthcare waste into hazardous (sharps, infectious, general, and expired drugs) and nonhazardous (general) wastes was adopted. The waste was measured using a digital scale, and the waste generation rate was subsequently determined. The waste generation measurements were conducted for 28 days. The data were analyzed using R version 4.2.0. MANOVA was used to compare the waste generation means among the healthcare categories at a 5% level of significance. Results: The results showed that the overall waste generation rates based on bed occupancy and the number of patients seen were varying. MCH (1.07 kg/bed/day) had the highest, whereas Bolero Rural Hospital (0.06 kg/bed/day) had the lowest waste generation rates. The tertiary hospitals generated more waste (35,659.68 kg), including hazardous (22,223.33 kg) and nonhazardous (13,447.09 kg) waste, than the other healthcare categories. There was a significant difference ( Conclusion: The waste generation rate was within the range reported for most low-income countries. However, hazardous wastes (62.26%) were generated, above the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended amount (<25%), thereby posing a risk for increased waste management costs and occupational hazard occurrence. This study highlights the need for concerted efforts to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated.
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.