↓ Skip to main content

Solid medical waste: a cross sectional study of household disposal practices and reported harm in Southern Ghana

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 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
Solid medical waste: a cross sectional study of household disposal practices and reported harm in Southern Ghana
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4366-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilia Asuquo Udofia, Gabriel Gulis, Julius Fobil

Abstract

Solid medical waste (SMW) in households is perceived to pose minimal risks to the public compared to SMW generated from healthcare facilities. While waste from healthcare facilities is subject to recommended safety measures to minimize risks to human health and the environment, similar waste in households is often untreated and co-mingled with household waste which ends up in landfills and open dumps in many African countries. In Ghana, the management of this potentially hazardous waste stream at household and community level has not been widely reported. The objective of this study was to investigate household disposal practices and harm resulting from SMW generated in households and the community. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 600 households was undertaken in Ga South Municipal Assembly in Accra, Ghana from mid-April to June, 2014. Factors investigated included socio-demographic characteristics, medication related practices, the belief that one is at risk of diseases associated with SMW, SMW disposal practices and reported harm associated with SMW at home and in the community. Eighty percent and 89% of respondents discarded unwanted medicines and sharps in household refuse bins respectively. A corresponding 23% and 35% of respondents discarded these items without a container. Harm from SMW in the household and in the community was reported by 5% and 3% of respondents respectively. Persons who believed they were at risk of diseases associated with SMW were nearly three times more likely to report harm in the household (OR 2.75, 95%CI 1.15-6.54). The belief that one can be harmed by diseases associated with SMW influenced reporting rates in the study area. Disposal practices suggest the presence of unwanted medicines and sharps in the household waste stream conferring on it hazardous properties. Given the low rates of harm reported, elimination of preventable harm might justify community intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 230 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 16%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Researcher 13 6%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 88 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 6%
Engineering 11 5%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 95 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,521,915
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,443
of 14,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,278
of 313,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#109
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,963 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 313,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.