↓ Skip to main content

Health risk reduction behaviors model for scavengers exposed to solid waste in municipal dump sites in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Health risk reduction behaviors model for scavengers exposed to solid waste in municipal dump sites in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2012
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s30707
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phiman Thirarattanasunthon, Wattasit Siriwong, Mark Robson, Marija Borjan

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of comprehensive health risk protection behaviors, knowledge, attitudes, and practices among scavengers in open dump sites. A control group of 44 scavengers and an intervention group of 44 scavengers participated in this study. Interventions included the use of personal protective equipment, health protection training, and other measures. The analysis showed significant differences before and after the intervention program and also between the control and intervention groups. These observations suggest that further action should be taken to reduce adverse exposure during waste collection. To reduce health hazards to workers, dump site scavenging should be incorporated into the formal sector program. Solid waste and the management of municipal solid waste has become a human and environmental health issue and future research should look at constructing a sustainable model to help protect the health of scavengers and drive authorities to adopt safer management techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
Unknown 108 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 10 9%
Lecturer 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Engineering 13 12%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 31 28%
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 28 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#545
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,428
of 179,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 179,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.