↓ Skip to main content

Hepatitis B and C in household and health services solid waste workers

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hepatitis B and C in household and health services solid waste workers
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, November 2015
DOI 10.1590/0102-311x00083814
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcos Paulo Gomes Mol, Dirceu Bartolomeu Greco, Sandy Cairncross, Leo Heller

Abstract

Human contact with solid waste poses biological, chemical, and physical health risks for workers involved in waste collection, transportation, and storage. The potential risk to human health resulting from contact with health services waste or household waste still sparks considerable controversy. The aim of this study was to identify the context of scientific discussions on risk/infection from the hepatitis B and C viruses in workers that collect solid waste from health services or households. The search covered publications up to 2013 in Brazilian and international databases, and 11 articles were selected through a literature review. Of these, six conclude that there is an increased risk of infection in workers that collect household waste when compared to those unexposed to waste, three point to greater risk for workers that collect health services waste as compared to those that collect ordinary waste, and the other two found no difference between exposed and unexposed individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Unknown 10 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Unknown 10 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,013
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,399
of 294,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.