Wafula et al.

BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 2 of 10

Background management level and did not explore HCW management

Health care wastes are considered the second most haz- among health workers. There is paucity of studies con-
ardous wastes globally after radiation waste [1]. Health- ducted to assess the management of HCWs among health
care wastes encompasses various forms of waste such as workers in primary health care facilities and factors that
sharps, human body parts, blood, chemical wastes, may influence it.
pharmaceutical wastes, and medical devices [2]. These We therefore set out to understand HCW manage-
wastes are majorly generated from hospitals and primary ment practices among health workers in primary health
care facilities, laboratories, mortuaries, autopsy centres, care facilities in Kampala and the factors that influence
laboratories, blood banks, nursing homes among others those practices.
[3]. Healthcare wastes can have devastating effects on
human health if not properly handled [4]. Mismanage- Methods
ment of HCWs can result into various hospital-acquired Study design, setting and study population
infections, occupational health hazards and food con- The study was cross sectional in design and employed
tamination [5]. In addition, mismanaged wastes such as quantitative techniques of data collection. It was con-
sharps contaminated with blood facilitates transmission ducted in Kampala, Uganda’s Capital City between March
of infections such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV/AIDs to April 2017. According to 2014 census results, Kampala
and other viral infections [2, 6, 7]. Health care workers, has an estimated resident population of 1,507,080 people
patients, workers in support services, visitors to health with an annual growth rate of 2.02% [25].
facilities, waste handlers, scavengers, fetuses in the This study was conducted among health workers in 8
wombs, and the general public are susceptible to these primary health care facilities in Kampala. In Uganda, the
infections [2, 8]. health care system is organised into a four-tier system
In developing countries especially in Africa, healthcare (i.e., hospitals, health centres of levels IV, III and II).
waste has not received the much needed attention that it Hospitals are considered high level facilities while health
deserves [9–11]. This is because of the inadequate centres; II, III and IV are lower level and are classified as
resources in these countries resulting into low priority primary health care facilities. These primary health care
for HCW management [12]. In many countries, there is facilities offer basic services for example Health centre
limited segregation of hazardous and medical wastes and IIs offer out-patients consultations, health centre IIIs
usually mixed with non-infectious waste [13, 14]. offer inpatient care and some laboratory services. In
Inadequate knowledge and unsatisfactory management addition to services offered at lower levels, Health centre
practices among the health care workers are major chal- of level IV offer some caesarean operations and blood
lenges in the management of HCWs [15]. Previous transfusion services. The main waste streams generated
research indicate that HCW management may be af- in these facilities included sharps, pathological wastes,
fected by lack of formal training, lack of knowledge on infectious wastes and general wastes.
HCW management, limited interest from hospital The study units were the primary health care facilities
administration [16–18]. and the study participants were health workers. In this
In Uganda, the HCW generated is averaged at 92 Kilo- study, we defined a health worker as a person who
grams (Kg) per day in hospital while primary health care works at health care centre and is engaged in all actions
facilities (Level IV health centers, level III health Centre aimed primarily on enhancing health of patients. These
and level II Health Centre) generate about 42Kg, 25 kg health workers included nurses, midwives, medical
and 20 kg respectively on daily basis [19]. Moreover, officers, laboratory personnel, counsellors and social
most of these primary health care facilities lack proper workers. All selected health workers who consented
HCW management facilities [20, 21]. Despite the policy were interviewed. Those who were absent on leave or
guidelines on injection and HCW management devel- medically not well were excluded.
oped by the Ministry of Health, Uganda, there is suffi-
cient evidence that HCWs including in Kampala health Sample size and sampling procedure
facilities is not properly handled [22, 23]. Although The Kish Leslie formula for cross sectional studies was
health care workers are routinely involved in managing used to calculate sample size of 231 health workers [26].
HCW at their workstations, there is little published data
on HCW management among health workers and more Zα2 pq
especially in primary health care facilities. Previous stud- Sample size; ðNÞ ¼
σ2
ies [16, 23, 24] on HCW management in East Africa
were mainly conducted in high level health facilities We considered, the following assumptions: Z score,
(hospitals) and not primary health care facilities. These Zα = 1.96; prevalence, p = 16.3% (adopted from a study
studies also delved more on HCW at facility on adherence to waste disposal guidelines among health
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 3 of 10

workers in Kenya) [27], a precision, σ = 5% and on practices on healthcare waste management with the
non-response rate of 10%. It is important to note that responses “Yes and No”. “No” was assigned 0 and “Yes”
actual population of health workers in these primary was assigned 1. We used mean scores to divide the
health care facilities in Kampala was small (< 500). HCW management status of health workers into two
Proportionate sampling was done to select a specific groups as suggested in the SAGE encyclopaedia of com-
number of health workers from each of the 8 primary munication research methods [28]. As such, respondents
health care facilities based on the number of health who scored above 4.995 (average score) on 7 questions
workers in each health facility (Table 1). This was based were considered as having satisfactory healthcare waste
on the numbers of health workers obtained from maintenance practices and those that scored less than
Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). 4.995 were deemed not to have satisfactory healthcare
From each of the health facilities, stratified proportion- waste management practices. Prevalence rate ratios
ate sampling was again employed to select the different (PRs) were computed using a generalized linear model
cadres of health workers (nurses, midwives, medical offi- of the Poisson family with the logarithm as the canonical
cers, laboratory personnel, counsellors and social link function, with robust standard errors while applying
workers). a forward elimination method. This was done to meas-
ure the association between the outcome and independ-
Data collection ent variables. Prevalence rate ratios (PRs) were used
We used a semi-structured questionnaire to collect instead of odds ratios since the prevalence of the out-
quantitative data from health workers on come variable was > 10%, yet logistic regression’s odds
socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge of HCW ratios tend to overestimate the relative risk in such
and perceptions of risk due to HCW and to capture instances [29, 30]. Simple models consisting of the out-
health workers’ HCW management practices such as come and one independent variable were run to obtain
segregation, availability of necessary accessories, occupa- the crude PRs. In the multivariable model, variables that
tional safety and health in their work stations. The tools were significant at simple models (p < 0.05) and those
were developed based on findings from published stud- that had plausibility with the outcome were included.
ies [1, 9, 23]. We pretested data collection tools with 15 The crude and the adjusted PRs and their corresponding
health workers in a health centre in the neighbouring 95% confidence intervals were presented. Level of know-
Wakiso district. Pretesting was done to mitigate any er- ledge which was a predictor variable was also classified
rors and avoid ambiguity in preparation for actual data as either good knowledge or poor knowledge, five ques-
collection. This facility was chosen because it is close to tions were asked on knowledge on healthcare waste
Kampala and has similar HCW challenges as the pri- management with the responses “Yes and No”. “No” was
mary health care facilities in Kampala. assigned 0 and “Yes” was assigned 1. Respondents who
scored above 4.6 (average score) were considered as
Data management and analysis having a good knowledge and those that scored less than
Data were checked daily for completeness, entered using 4.6 were deemed to have poor knowledge on HCW
EpiData version 3.02 (EpiData association, Denmark). management. Level of knowledge was however excluded
We used Stata 14.0 (Statacorp Texas; USA) for cleaning in the final regression model due to collinearity.
and analysis. To determine the status of HCW manage- Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in
ment (Outcome variable), which was classified as either epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines informed the report-
satisfactory or unsatisfactory, seven questions were asked ing of our study [31].

Table 1 Number of health workers planned for interview at each facility

Health facility Number of health workers (n) Percentage (%)
1 Kisenyi Health centre 45 19.5
2 Bukoto Health Centre 12 5.2
3 Kawaala health centre 36 15.6
4 Kisswa health centre 40 17.3
5 Komamboga health centre 22 9.5
6 Kitebi health centre 25 10.8
7 Kisuggu health centre 41 17.7
8 City hall clinic 10 4.3
TOTAL 231 100
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 4 of 10

Results with HCWs 182(91.0%), the right colour codes for the
Socio-demographic characteristics of participants bins for different wastes forms 179 (89.5%). About 120
A total of 200 health workers participated in the study health workers (60.0%) had been trained on HCW
representing response rate of 86.6%. Participation was management and 41 (34.2%) had attended at least three
skewed towards the female health workers since only trainings. As regards attitudes, most 181 (90.5%) indi-
53(26.5%) were males. Two-thirds were married 135 cated that HCW management was important and 186
(67.5%), aged 18–35 years 131 (67.2%). Most participants (93.0%) agreed that strict implementation was necessary
identified themselves as Christians 161 (80.5%), 151 for proper HCW Management in health facility setting
(75.5%) as nurses or midwives by training and 136 (Table 3).
(68.0%) held a diploma as their highest education level
(Table 2). Experiences and practices on HCW management
Overall, most 188 (94.0%) health workers had a waste
Knowledge and attitudes of health workers on HCW bin around their working area and 144 (72.0%) wore ap-
management propriate personal protective equipment. Only 56
Knowledge of health workers on HCW management (28.0%) reported ever being affected by effects of poor
was high 143 (71.5%). Majority knew the risks associated HCW management with needle pricks 69.6% (39/56)
and infections 26.8% (15/56) being the most reported ef-
Table 2 Socio-demographic characteristics of 200 health
fects / accidents. Nearly three quarters 148 (74.0%) were
workers
categorized as having satisfactory HCW management
Variables Frequency Percentage
(n = 200) (%) practices (Table 4).
Total 200 100
Independent predictors for HCW management among
Gender
health workers
Female 147 73.5 Compared to health workers with higher secondary
Male 53 26.5 education, health workers with a diploma were 1.49
Age (Years) times more likely to have satisfactory waste management
18–35 131 65.5 practices (Adjusted PR = 1.49, 95%CI (1.13–1.96)), p
> 35 69 34.5
value = 0.005). The odds of satisfactory waste manage-
ment practices were 1.1 times higher among health
Marital status
workers in teenage corner as compared to those working
Married 135 67.5 in the outpatient clinic (Adjusted PR = 1.10, 95% CI
Unmarried 65 32.5 (1.01–1.29)), p value 0.043). Participants who had been
Religion trained on HCW management were 1.19 times more
Christian 161 80.5 likely to have satisfactory HCW management practices
Non-Christian 39 19.5
compared to those who had not received the training
(Adjusted PR = 1.19, 95%CI (1.01–1.42)), p value =
Job designation
0.042). Those who considered HCW management as im-
Nurse/midwife 151 75.5 portant were 2.81 times more likely to observe satisfac-
Medical officer 16 8.0 tory HCW management practices as compared to those
Counsellor 18 9.0 who thought otherwise (Adjusted PR = 2.81, 95%CI
Othersa 15 7.5 (1.22–6.47)), p value = 0.016) (Table 5).
Department
Discussion
Outpatient department 124 62.0
This study aimed at understanding management of
Maternity ward 39 19.5 HCWs and associated factors among health workers in
HIV section 10 5.0 primary health care facilities in Kampala, Uganda. Our
Teenage Corner 10 5.0 findings show that majority of the health workers had
Other departments 17 8.5 high knowledge on HCW management; knew how
Level of education
wastes are segregated and the risk to health. Most of
them, used waste bins and wore personal protective
Diploma 136 68.0
wear when handling HCWs. A high proportion had sat-
Higher secondary (A’ level) 34 17.0 isfactory HCW management practices. Health workers
Lower secondary (O′ level) 30 15.0 in teenage corner, those who had attended training on
a
Other designations included laboratory personnel, social work HCW management and those who thought that HCW
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 5 of 10

Table 3 Knowledge and attitudes of Health workers on HCW management

Variables Frequency Percentage
(n = 200) (%)
Knowledge on HCW Management
HCW management is
Activities and actions to manage waste from its inception to final 190 95.0
Collection of waste from one central place 03 1.5
Generation of waste 07 3.5
Knowledge of risks of poor HCW management
Yes 182 91.0
No 18 9.0
Knowledge of the level of Risk to health workers
High 182 91.0
Low 18 9.0
Infections due to poor HCW management can be avoided
Yes 179 89.5
No 21 10.5
Ever attended training in HCW management
Yes 120 60.0
No 80 40.0
Number of Trainings attended (n = 120)
1–2 79 65.8
3 and above 41 34.2
Knowledge of bin colour codes for different waste streams (waste segregation)
Know (Red, yellow, black) 179 89.5
Do not know 21 10.5
Knowledge scores (CIs for High Knowledge) (65.2–77.8)
Poor knowledge 57 28.5
High Knowledge 143 71.5
Attitudes on healthcare wastes management
HCW management is important
Yes 181 90.5
No 19 9.5
Strict implementation is necessary for proper HCW management
Yes 186 93
No 14 7.0
HCW management is a serious problem
Yes 182 91.0
No 18 9.0
CIs: Confidence Intervals

management was a challenge had higher odds of having hazards such as injuries, infections (HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis
satisfactory HCW management practices. B and C), and environmental pollution caused by
Concerning Knowledge on HCW management, most improper HCW management [32, 33]. The prior train-
health workers had high knowledge especially on waste ings on HCW management that most health workers
segregation and level of risk to health posed by HCWs. had, partly explains the high knowledge. In our study,
Similar findings have been reported in other studies 60% of participants had prior trainings consistent with
where most health workers were aware of the risk of what has been reported in other studies which indicated
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 6 of 10

Table 4 Practices of health workers on HCW management

Variables Frequency (n = 200) Percentage (%)
Presence of litter/waste bins in work stationb
Yes 188 94.0
No 12 6.0
Waste bins colour coded2
Yes 164 82.0
No 36 18.0
b
Uses general pit to dispose general waste
Yes 71 35.5
No 129 64.5
Health workers dispose pathological wastes in the placenta pit b
Yes 163 81.5
No 37 18.5
b
Presence of Expired drugs at the work station
Yes 97 48.5
No 45 22.5
Did not know 58 29.0
Disposal of expired drugs
Burning 18 9.0
Waste bin company 102 51.0
Return to national medical stores 76 38.0
Did not know 4 2.0
Use of Personal protective equipment (gloves, nose masks, clinical coats)b
Yes 160 80.0
No 40 20.0
b
Regularity of use of Personal protective equipment
Always 144 72.0
Occasionally 56 28.0
Ever been affected due to poor HCW management
Yes 56 28.0
No 144 72.0
Effects of poor HCW management (n = 56)
Needle pricks 39 69.6
Infection 15 26.8
Spills of Blood 02 3.8
Ever reported injury to infection and control Unit
Yes 35 17.5
No 165 82.5
Health care waste management status (CIs for satisfactory HCW management) (67.8–80.1%)
Satisfactory 148 74.0
Unsatisfactory 52 26.0
b
Variables used in ascertaining HCW management status

that most health workers had trained on HCW manage- improves knowledge of health workers, increases their
ment. Training on HCW management is considered crit- cooperation with HCW programmes and also impacts
ical to success of any waste management programme; It on their practices on HCW management [34–36]. It is
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 7 of 10

Table 5 Independent predictors of HCW management among health workers

Variables Frequency Proportion % Crude PR 95% (CI) Adjusted PR P value
(n = 200) 95% CI
Sex
Male 53 26.5 1 1
Female 147 73.5 1.04 (0.86–1.27) 1.17 (0.99–1.40) 0.068
Age (Years)
18–35 131 65.5 1 1
35 and Above 69 34.5 1.22 (1.05–1.43)* 1.13 (0.99–1.30) 0.060
Marital status
Married 135 67.5 1
Unmarried 65 32.5 0.99 (0.84–1.19)
Religion
Christian 161 80.5 1
Non-Christian 39 19.5 0.84 (0.65–1.08)
Job designation
Nurse/midwife 151 75.5 1
Medical officer 16 8.0 0.83 (0.56–1.22)
Counsellor 18 9.0 0.88 (0.63–1.24)
Others (laboratory personnel, social workers) 15 7.5 1.06 (0.81–1.38)
Department
Outpatient department 124 62.0 1 1
Maternity ward 39 19.5 0.79 (0.61–1.04) 0.83 (0.66–1.03) 0.092
HIV section 10 5.0 0.52 (0.24–1.11) 0.55 (0.26–1.15) 0.111
Teenage Corner 10 5.0 1.29 (1.17–1.42)* 1.10 (1.01–1.29)* 0.043
Other departments 17 8.5 1.06 (0.84–1.35) 1.14 (0.89–1.47) 0.285
Level of education
Higher secondary 34 17.0 1 1
Diploma 136 68 1.69 (1.20–2.39)* 1.49 (1.13–1.96)* 0.005
Lower secondary 30 15.0 1.07 (0.66–1.72) 1.14 (0.77–1.68) 0.523
Knowledge of risks of poor HCW management
Did not know 10 5.0 1
Know 190 95.0 1.51 (0.80–2.82)
Knowledge of risk of HCW to health workers
High 182 91.0 1 1
Low 18 9.0 1.73 (1.03–2.92)* 1.09 (0.67–1.79) 0.717
Ever attended training in HCW management
No 80 40.0 1 1
Yes 120 60.0 1.30 (1.08–1.58)* 1.19 (1.01–1.42)* 0.042
Knowledge of colour codes
Did not know 21 10.5 1
Know 179 89.5 1.12 (0.82–1.54)
Overall Knowledgec
Low 57 28.5 1
High 143 71.5 3.77 (1.92–7.39)
HCW management important
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 8 of 10

Table 5 Independent predictors of HCW management among health workers (Continued)

Variables Frequency Proportion % Crude PR 95% (CI) Adjusted PR P value
(n = 200) 95% CI
No 19 9.5 1 1
Yes 181 90.5 3.78 (1.57–9.07)* 2.81 (1.22–6.47)* 0.016
HCW management a serious problem
Not serious 18 9.0 1
Very serious 182 91.0 1.36 (0.89–2.08)
Ever been affected by HCW
No 144 72.0 1.
Yes 56 28.0 0.99 (0.82–1.19)
Ever reported injury to infection and control Unit
No 165 82.5 1
Yes 35 17.5 1.05 (0.86–1.29)
PR Prevalence ratios, CI Confidence Interval, *p < 0.05
c
Not included in multivariable model due to collinearity

therefore important to intensify training for all health knowledge on HCW management and yet such opportun-
workers with emphasis on implications of proper HCW ity is almost non-existent in secondary school. Continued
management on costs and risks to human and environ- professional development may help improve the practices
mental health. Most health worker believed that strict of health workers on management of HCWs.
enforcement is essential for proper HCW management. Health workers who had received training on HCW man-
Many scholars have recommended strict enforcement; agement were more likely to have satisfactory practices. A
adding that this has to be complemented with continu- possible explanation may be because they are able to put
ous trainings [37, 38]. into practice what they have trained in. Our findings also
Wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) such as support the findings of a similar study in Ethiopia which re-
gloves, masks, clinical coats, shoes helps to minimise vealed that health workers trained on healthcare waste
exposure to infections and injuries [39]. In this study, management were more likely to exhibit satisfactory prac-
most health workers wore appropriate (PPE) which is a tices on HCW management [42]. Trainings should there-
good practice since it minimises risk of contact with the fore be intensified as they have shown to improve practices
waste. Our findings did not corroborate with findings of of health workers regarding how they handle HCW.
a cross sectional study conducted in a Tanzanian Muni- Health workers who thought that HCW management
cipality in which most health workers did not wear was important were more likely to have satisfactory
appropriate personal protective gear [40]. The low usage HCW management practices as compared to those who
in the aforementioned study was attributed to the fact thought otherwise. This finding is understandable be-
that health workers were not provided with protective cause it is expected that such health workers based on
gear by their employees. It is appropriate to ensure ad- their attitude would take practical measures to properly
equate provision of PPE and then supervision for proper handle HCWs. It has been shown that health workers
and consistent use. are more likely to be cautious and take necessary mea-
Generally, the practices of health workers on HCW sures when they realise that HCW poses risk [42].
management were satisfactory which relates to appre- Health workers in the teenage corner were more likely
ciable knowledge as there was significant association to have satisfactory HCW management practices as
between practice and knowledge scores (p < 0001). The compared to those in the outpatient clinic. This is
satisfactory practices suggest that health workers might understandable because further analysis found that all
be less likely to experience adverse effects associated with health workers in the teenage corner had diploma
poor handling. Our finding corroborates with findings of a education unlike in the Outpatient department. The fact
similar study conducted in Egypt in which most health that higher education levels were associated with satis-
workers had satisfactory practice scores [41]. It was found factory practices may have modified the association
that health workers with diploma education were more between department and HCW management.
likely to have satisfactory HCW management practices as
compared to those with higher secondary education, a Limitations
finding which is understandable given that a diploma gen- This study had some limitations; firstly, the sample size
erally offers better opportunity to acquire extensive was relatively small which limits the generalizability of
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 9 of 10

the results. The second limitation is that some variables Author details
1
that would have improved the assessment of Knowledge Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public
Health, Makerere University, P.o Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda. 2International
and attitudes even further were missed in the design of Health Sciences University (IHSU), Kampala, Uganda.
the tool. Future studies should consider other variables
including those in the WHO checklists on medical waste Received: 24 October 2018 Accepted: 11 February 2019

management. Notwithstanding the limitations, the study

provides useful information about management of
HCWs among health workers and associated factors in References
1. Arab M, Baghbani RA, Tajvar M, Pourreza A, Omrani G, Mahmoudi M. The
primary health care facilities in Kampala, Uganda.
assessment of hospital waste management:a case study in Tehran. Waste
Manag Res. 2008;26(3):304–8.
Conclusions 2. Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Current topics in public health. Rijeka: InTech; 2013.
3. Pépin J, Abou Chakra CN, Pépin E, Nault V, Valiquette L. Evolution of the
Health workers in primary health care facilities in global burden of viral infections from unsafe medical injections, 2000-2010.
Kampala, Uganda generally have satisfactory practices on PLoSOne. 2014;9(6):e99677.
HCW management. Health workers with at least diploma 4. Johannessen LM, Dijkman M, Bartone C, Hanrahan D, Boyer MG, Chandra C.
Health care waste management guidance note. Washington DC: World
education and those trained on HCW management were Bank. In; 2000.
more likely to have satisfactory HCW management prac- 5. Manyele SV. Effects of improper hospital-waste management on
tices. Refresher trainings on HCW management and occupational health and safety. Afr Newsl Occup Health Safety.
2004;14(2):30–3.
continuous supervision are therefore important in 6. World Health Organization (WHO). Health-care waste [https://www.who.int/
promoting proper HCW practices among health workers. en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste].
7. Askarian M, Heidarpoor P, Assadian O. A total quality management
Abbreviations approach to healthcare waste management in Namazi hospital, Iran. Waste
HCW: Health Care Waste; HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus; Manag. 2010;30(11):2321–6.
IHSU: International Health Sciences University; KCCA: Kampala Capital City 8. Akter N: Medical Waste Manag: a review. Bangkok: Environmental
Authority; PPE : Personal protective Equipment; PRs: Prevalence Ratios; Engineering Program, School of Environment, Resources and Development.
WHO: World Health Organization Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. 2000.
9. Patwary MA, Harare TW, Sarker MH. Assessment of occupational and
Acknowledgements environmental safety associated with medical waste disposal in developing
The authors appreciate all the staff of the health facilities surveyed and the countries. A qualitative approach. Saf Sci. 2011;49:8–9.
local authorities for their immense support during the study. 10. Coker A, Sangodoyin A, Sridhar M, Booth C, Olomolaiye P, Hammond F.
Medical waste management in Ibadan, Nigeria: obstacles and prospects.
Funding Waste Manag. 2009;29(2):804–11.
No funding was received to produce this manuscript. 11. Harhay MO, Halpern SD, Harhay JS, Olliaro PL: Health care waste
management: a neglected and growing public health problem worldwide
2009, 14(11):1414–1417.
Availability of data and materials
12. Diaz LF, Eggerth LL, Enkhtsetse SH, Savage GM. Characteristics of healthcare.
The dataset used to support the findings of the current study is available
Waste Manag Res. 2008;28:1219–26.
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
13. Bdour A, Altrabsheh B, Hadadin N, Al-Shareif M. Assessment of medical
wastes management practice: a case study of the northern part of Jordan.
Authors’ contributions Waste Manag. 2007;27(6):746–59.
JM and STW designed the study and collected the data. STW and FO carried 14. Hassan MM, Ahmed SA, Rahman KA, Biswas TK. Pattern of medical waste
out the analysis and wrote the first draft of the paper. STW spearheaded the management: existing scenario in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. BMC Public
writing of the first draft. FO participated in scientific and technical editing of Health. 2008;8:36.
the manuscript to ensure appropriate intellectual content. All authors were 15. Patil GV, Parokhrel K. Biomedical solid waste management in an Indian
involved in the writing, critical review and approval of the final version of hospital. Waste Manag. 2005;25:592–9.
the manuscript. 16. Nkonge Njagi A, Mayabi Oloo A, Kithinji J, Magambo Kithinji J. Knowledge,
attitude and practice of health-care waste management and associated
Ethics approval and consent to participate health risks in the two teaching and referral hospitals in Kenya. J
Approval to conduct this study was obtained from International Health Community Health. 2012;37(6):1172–7.
Sciences University (IHSU) Research Ethics Committee, in Kampala. 17. Makhura RR, Matlala SF, Kekana MP. Medical waste disposal at a hospital in
Administrative clearance was also obtained from Kampala Capital City Mpumalanga Province, South Africa: implications for training of healthcare
Authority (KCCA) and the In-Charges of the health facilities. The study details professionals. S Afr Med J. 2016;106(11):1096–102.
were explained to the individual participants; participation in this study was 18. Muluken A, Haimanot G, Mesafint M. Healthcare waste management
voluntary and all consenting health workers signed a written informed con- practices among healthcare workers in healthcare facilities of Gondar town,
sent form. Northwest Ethiopia; 2014.
19. AIDSTAR-One: Fact sheet: Health care Waste Manag in Uganda. In.;
Consent for publication 2000.
Not applicable 20. Victoria M, Pearson J, Michael K, Namisango E, Rogers-Bloch Q, Amandua J.
Assessment of Health Care Waste Management Practices in Three Districts
Competing interests in Uganda. Arlington, VA: USAID’s AIDS Support and Technical Assistance
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Resources, AIDSTAR-One, Task Order One; 2014.
21. Ruoyan G, Lingzhong X, Huijuan L, Chengchao Z, Jiangjiang H, Yoshihisa S,
Wei T, Chushi K. Investigation of health care waste management in Binzhou
Publisher’s Note District, China. Waste Manag. 2010;30(2):246–50.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in 22. MOH: Environmental and social impact assessment for proposed renovation
published maps and institutional affiliations. and equipping health facilities in Uganda. In.; 2010.
Wafula et al. BMC Public Health (2019) 19:203 Page 10 of 10

23. Mugambe RK, Ssempebwa JC, Tumwesigye NM, Bas VV, Adebola A. Healthcare
waste management in Uganda: management and generation rates in public
and private hospitals in Kampala. J Public Health. 2012;20(3):245–51.
24. Manyele S, Anicetus H. Management of medical waste in Tanzania hospitals.
Tanzan J Health Research. 2006;8(3).
25. UBOS. National population and housing census 2014 provisional results,
Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Kampala: Ministry of planning and regional
development; 2014.
26. Wiegand H, Kish L, Sampling S. John Wiley & sons, Inc., New York, London
1965, IX + 643 S., 31 Abb., 56 tab., Preis 83 s. Biom Z. 1968;10(1):88–9.
27. Njue PM, Cheboi KS, Shadrak O. Adherence to healthcare waste
management guidelines among nurses and waste handlers in Thika sub-
county- Kenya. Ethiopian J Health Sci. 2015;25(4):295–304.
28. Allen M. The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods;
2017.
29. Andrade C. Understanding relative risk, odds ratio, and related terms: as
simple as it can get. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(7):e857–61.
30. Schmidt CO, Kohlmann T. When to use the odds ratio or the relative risk?
Int J Public Health. 2008;53(3):165–7.
31. Elm Ev ADG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP.
Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology
(STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting. Observational Stud. 2007;
335(7624):806–8.
32. Saraf Y, Shinde M, and Tiwari SC. Study of awareness status about hospital
waste management among personnel and quantification. Indian J
Community Med. 2006;31(2):111.
33. Pandit NB, Mehta HK, Kartha GP, Choudhary SK. Management of bio-
medical waste: awareness and practices in a district of Gujarat. Indian J
Public Health. 2005;49(4):245–7.
34. Kumar R, Samrongthong R, Shaikh BT. Knowledge, attitude and practices of
health staff regarding infectious waste handling of tertiary care health
facilities at metropolitan city of Pakistan. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2013;
25(1–2):109–12.
35. Kumar R, Somrongthong R, Shaikh BT. Effectiveness of intensive healthcare
waste management training model among health professionals at teaching
hospitals of Pakistan: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Health Serv Res.
2015;15:81.
36. Al-Khatib IA. Problems of management of medical solid waste at primary
health care centres in the Palestinian territory and their remedial measures.
East Mediterr Health J. 2014;19(Suppl 3):S152–8.
37. Rajan R, Robin DT, Vandanarani M. biomedical waste management in
Ayurveda hospitals – current practices & future prospectives. J Ayurveda Integr
Med 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2017.07.011.
38. Bansal M, Mishra A, Gautam P, Changulani R, Srivastava D, Gour N.
Biomedical waste management: awareness and practices in a district of
Madhya Pradesh. Natl J Commun Med. 2011;2(3).
39. Askarian M, Vakili M, Kabir G. Results of a hospital waste survey in private
hospitals in Fars province, Iran. Waste Manag. 2004;24:347–52.
40. Kuchibanda K, Mayo AW. Public health risks from mismanagement of
healthcare wastes in Shinyanga municipality health facilities, Tanzania.
Scientific World J. 2015;2015:981756.
41. Hakim SA, Mohsen A, Bakr I. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of health-
care personnel towards waste disposal management at Ain Shams
University hospitals, Cairo. East Mediterr Health J. 2014;20(5):347–54.
42. Muluken AY, Haimanot GM, Woldeyohannes SM. A cross sectional study on
factors associated with risk perception of healthcare workers toward
healthcare waste management in health care facilities of Gondar town,
Northwest Ethiopia. Int J Infect Control. 2012;8(3).