Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study reveals significant disparities in biomedical waste knowledge across hospital worker groups, indicating an urgent need for targeted training for waste handlers.
Background: Biomedical waste management requires correct segregation, handling and disposal at the point of generation. Knowledge may vary among different categories of healthcare workers. Aim was To assess and compare knowledge regarding biomedical waste management among healthcare professionals, nursing staff, laboratory technicians and biomedical handlers. Materials and Methods: This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study included 100 participants, with 25 participants in each professional group. Knowledge was assessed using a 25-item multiple-choice questionnaire. Each correct response was given one mark and the maximum score was 25. Data were analysed using R version 4.5.2. Descriptive statistics were presented as mean ± standard deviation and median with interquartile range. The Kruskal–Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Pearson chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The overall mean knowledge score was 21.11 ± 2.42. Healthcare professionals had the highest score of 22.92 ± 1.73, followed by nursing staff at 22.20 ± 1.41, laboratory technicians at 20.88 ± 1.17 and biomedical handlers at 18.44 ± 2.40. The difference among the groups was significant (H = 47.723, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals and nursing staff had comparable scores, while biomedical handlers had the lowest scores. Overall correct responses ranged from 76% to 91%. Conclusion: Biomedical waste knowledge was generally high but differed significantly among various professional groups. Biomedical handlers had the greatest knowledge gap and require regular practical training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yadav et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: