4.2 Article

Health belief model to predict sharps injuries among health care workers at first level care facilities in rural Pakistan

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 479-487

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22117

Keywords

sharp injury; Pakistan; first level care facilities; health care workers; negative binomial regression; blood borne pathogens; universal precautions; standard precautions

Funding

  1. Aga Khan University, University Research Council [082F41070199]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background We assessed the frequency and predictors of sharp injuries (SIs) among health care workers (HCWs) at first level care facilities (FLCF) in rural Pakistan. Method HCWs working at public clinic (PC), privately owned licensed practitioners' clinic (LPC) and non-licensed practitioners' clinic(NLC) were interviewed on universal precautions (UPs) and constructs of health belief model (HBM) to assess their association with SIs through negative-binomial regression. Results From 365 clinics, 485 HCWs were interviewed. Overall annual rate of SIs was 192/100 HCWs/year; 78/100 HCWs among licensed prescribers, 191/100 HCWs among non-licensed prescribers, 248/100 HCWs among qualified assistants, and 321/100 HCWs among non-qualified assistants. Increasing knowledge score about bloodborne pathogens (BBPs) transmission (rate-ratio (RR): 0.93; 95%CI: 0.890.96), fewer years of work experience, being a non-licensed prescriber (RR: 2.02; 95%CI: 1.362.98) licensed (RR: 2.86; 9%CI: 1.814.51) or non-licensed assistant (RR: 2.78; 95%CI: 1.724.47) compared to a licensed prescriber, perceived barriers (RR: 1.06; 95%CI: 1.031.08), and compliance with UPs scores (RR: 0.93; 95%CI: 0.870.97) were significant predictors of SIs. Conclusion Improved knowledge about BBPs, compliance with UPs and reduced barriers to follow UPs could reduce SIs to HCWs. Am. J. Ind. Med. 56:479487, 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available