Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Biomedical Waste Management among Health Care Personnel in a Secondary Care Hospital of Al Buraimi Governorate, Sultanate of Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to existence of highly infectious materials, the biomedical waste can be a probable source for transmission of diseases as well as occupational hazards among health care workers if not adequately managed. Objective: To assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of biomedical waste management among health care personnel in a secondary hospital of Al Buraimi Governorate, Sultanate Oman.METHODOLOGY: A Cross sectional descriptive self-administered questionnaire based study was conducted among 207 subjects from 30th September 2015 to 30th March 2016 in Al-Buraimi hospital, Oman. Stratified random sampling comprised of four strata (100 nurses, 65 doctors, 22 housekeeping staff and 20 laboratory technicians).Chi-Square test was applied using SPSS version 21 with significance level ≤ 0.05. Confidentiality was maintained with ethical approval from research committee and informed formal consent was taken from the participants. RESULT: Overall response rate was 125 (60.3%) from total 207, mean age 36.14±8.9 and age ranges from 20 to 58 years with mean age (doctors 42.5, nurses 29.8, laboratory technician 29.2 and housekeeping staff 36). Female proportion of 82 (65.6%) was higher as compare to males 43 (34.4%). The study was analyzed on the basis of “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory” scores using “cut-off point” tools. Nurses had better satisfactory knowledge (90.9%), attitude (94.5%) and practice (80%) scores as compare to other participants. The overall “satisfactory” knowledge, attitude and practice scores were found to be statistically insignificant (P=0.100, P=0.346, P=0.364 respectively). No significant relationship established between dichotomized variables of knowledge and practice (P = 0.264) as well as attitude and practice (P = 0.147).CONCLUSION: The “satisfactory” scores of knowledge, attitude and practice were found to be higher among nurses as compared to other participants, which may be due to intensive patient care and more involvement in biomedical waste management as well as greater responsibility allocated by hospital administration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".