Risk of infection among primary health workers in the Western Development Region, Nepal: knowledge and compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Without protective practices such as antiseptic hand washing, the use of sterile/surgical gloves, safe needles, sterile equipment, and safe instrument and waste disposal procedures outlined in universal precaution guidelines, basic health workers (BHWs) are at substantial risk of blood-borne infections. METHODOLOGY: This paper draws on research conducted in 28 primary health care centers in two districts of the Western Development Region, Nepal, between 2003 and 2004. Interviews were conducted to identify the infection control knowledge and practice compliance of basic health workers. RESULTS: Of 100 BHWs studied, only 22% had correct knowledge of universal precautions and 73% said they follow universal precaution guidelines. A total of 62% reported that they regularly used protective gloves while handling patients and 72% reported that they never used high-level disinfection to eliminate all microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites, including bacterial endospores) from instruments and other items that would come into contact with broken skin or intact mucous membranes. Reasons for noncompliance included irregular supply of materials (31%); lack of an autoclave and other high-level disinfection equipment (50%); lack of knowledge and insufficient technical skills regarding universal precaution procedures (20%). CONCLUSION: Results showed that poor knowledge and an irregular supply of materials, equipment, and instruments prevented BHWs from using infection control measures. Formal training in universal precautions is urgently needed, and protective equipment must be provided and use must be monitored. Compliance to infection control procedures must be improved at primary health care units, especially among the basic health workers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".