A Co-relational Study to assess the Knowledge and Attitude of nurses regarding Biomedical Waste Management in selected hospitals of Gulbarga

 

Shireen Samson

Principal Cum Professor, Maharashtra College of Nursing, Latur.

*Corresponding Author Email: santosh4u555@gmail.com

 

ABSTRACT:

Background of the Study: Biomedical waste has become a serious health hazard in many countries, including India. In many countries, hazardous and medical wastes are still handled and disposed together with domestic wastes, thus creating a great health risk to municipal workers, the public and the environment. The present study was conducted to assess the knowledge and attitude of nurses regarding biomedical waste management in selected hospitals of Gulbarga. Objectives of The Study: 1 To assess the Knowledge of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management. 2 To assess the Attitude of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management. 3 To correlate the knowledge and attitude of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management. 4 To find out the association between the Knowledge and Attitude of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management and selected socio-demographic variables. Method: A descriptive approach with descriptive survey design was used for this study. The study was carried out in selected hospitals of Gulbarga. The sample comprised of 100 nurses who met the inclusion criteria from the selected hospitals were chosen by purposive sampling technique. Data was collected by administering a structured knowledge questionnaire and Likert’s Attitude scale. The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics Results: Mean percentage of knowledge score was 57.3%. Majority 66% had moderate knowledge regarding biomedical waste management. Mean percentage of attitude score was 73.49%. Majority 60% had moderately favourable attitude regarding biomedical waste management. The correlation between knowledge and attitude was found to be significant (r- 0.617). No significant association was found between the knowledge and selected demographic variables such as gender, designation, previous information and working area (χ2 =1.846, 3.375, 11.237 and 11.647). But significant association was found between the knowledge of nurses and age, professional qualification, clinical experience and type of hospital (χ2 =20.225, 10.474, 19.717 and 6.221). No significant association was found between the attitude of nurses and selected demographic variables such as age, professional qualification, designation, clinical experience, previous information, type of hospital and working area (χ2 =3.219, 3.571, 2.168, 1.341, 2.800, 0.815 and 5.828). But a significant association was found between the attitude of nurses and gender (χ2 =4.920). Interpretation and Conclusion: The study had shown that majority of the nurses had moderate knowledge and moderately favourable attitude regarding biomedical waste management. Hence, it was concluded that nurses need to be educated on biomedical waste management in order to achieve better care.

 

KEYWORDS: Assess, Knowledge, Attitude, Nurses, Biomedical waste management.

 

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

1.     To assess the Knowledge of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management.

2.     To assess the Attitude of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management.

3.     To correlate the knowledge and attitude of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management.

4.     To find out the association between the Knowledge of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management and selected socio-demographic variables.

 

HYPOTHESES:

H1:   There will be a significant relationship between the knowledge and attitude level of nurses regarding Biomedical waste management.

H2:   There will be a significant association between the Knowledge level of the nurses and selected socio-demographic variables.

 

RESEARCH APPROACH:

In view of the nature of the problem under the study and to accomplish the objectives of the study, the researcher adopted descriptive approach to assess the knowledge and attitude of nurses regarding biomedical waste management for the present study.

 

RESEARCH DESIGN:

Research design is an overall plan for obtaining answers to the research questions or for testing the research hypothesis.

 

In the present study, descriptive survey design was selected for the study. The purpose of descriptive survey is systematic collection and presentation of data to give a clear picture of a particular situation

 

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES:

i.      Research variable:

In the present study, knowledge and attitude of nurses regarding biomedical waste management is the dependent variable.

 

Population:

Population refers to a total category of persons or objects that meet the criteria for study established by the researcher, any set of persons, objects or measurements having observable characteristics in common.53

 

Population of the study comprised of the nurses who are working in hospitals.

 

Sample And Sample Size:

Sample refers to the subset of a population selected to participate in a research study.51

 

In the present study, sample consists of nurses who are working in selected hospitals of Gulbarga The present study includes 100 nurses as sample.

 

Sampling Technique:

Sampling is a process of selecting a subset of the population in which entire population is represented.54

The purposive sampling method was used in selection of the hospitals and sample for the present study.

 

Sampling Criteria:

The sampling frame structured by the researcher includes the following criteria:

 

Inclusion Criteria:

i.      The nurses who were working in selected hospitals of Gulbarga.

ii.     The nurses who were willing to participate in the study.

iii.   The nurses who were available at the time of data collection.

iv.   The nurses who studied either General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM), B.Sc.

 

Nursing or Post-basic B.Sc. Nursing.

 

Exclusion Criteria:

i.       The nurses who were not willing to participate in the study.

 

RESULTS:

Analysis of data is a process by which qualitative information is reduced, summarized, organized, evaluated, interpreted and communicated in a meaningful way.19

 

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data collected from 100 nurses in order to assess the knowledge and attitude of the nurses regarding biomedical waste management in selected hospitals of Gulbarga. The findings based on the descriptive and inferential statistical analysis are presented according to the objectives.

 

Organization of Data:

The analysis and interpretation has been organized and presented under the following headings as per the objectives of the study:

 

Section A: Description of demographic characteristics of respondents

Section B: Assessment of knowledge regarding biomedical waste management

Section C: Assessment of attitude regarding biomedical waste management

Section D: Correlation between the knowledge and attitude regarding biomedical waste management

Section E: Association between the knowledge and attitude regarding biomedical waste management and selected demographic variables

 

Presentation of Data:

Section A: Description of Demographic Characteristics:

This section deals with the data pertaining to the demographic variables of the respondents. Demographic variables included in the present study were age, gender, professional qualification, designation, clinical experience, previous information, type of hospital and working area

 

Table.1 Distribution of respondents by Age in year N=100

 

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

 

Age

(In years)

20 – 25

62

62

26 – 30

21

21

31 – 35

8

8

36 – 40

8

8

Above 40

1

1

Total

100

100

 

Table.1 depict the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to age. Majority 62% of the respondents were in the age group of 20–25 years, 21% were in the age group 26–30 years, 8% were in the age group 31-35 years, 8% in 36–40 years and only 1% was above 40 years.

 

Table 2: Distribution of respondents by Gender N=100

 

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

 

Gender

Male

11

11

Female

89

89

Total

100

100

 

Table. 2 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to gender. 11% of the respondents were male and majority 89% were female.

 

Table.3 Distribution of respondents by Professional Qualification N=100

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

 

Professional Qualification

GNM

70

70

B.Sc. (N)

25

25

Post-basic B.Sc. (N)

5

5

Total

100

100

 

Table.3 and fig.6 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to professional qualification. Majority 70% of the respondents were GNM, 25% were B.Sc.(N) and 5% were post-basic B.Sc.(N).

 

Table.4 Distribution of respondents by Designation N=100

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

 

Designation

Staff Nurse

98

98

Incharge Nurse

1

1

Head Nurse

1

1

Total

100

100

 

Table. 4 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to designation. Majority 98% of the respondents were staff nurses, 1% was incharge nurse and 1% was head nurse.

 

Table 5 Distribution of respondents by Clinical Experience N=100

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

 

Clinical Experience

Less than 1 year

33

33

1 – 5 years

36

36

6 – 10 years

17

17

More than 10 years

14

14

Total

100

100

 

Table. 5 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to clinical experience. 33% of the respondents were having clinical experience of less than one year, majority 36% were having 1–5 years, 17% were having 6–10 years and 14% were having clinical experience of more than 10 years

 

Table 6: Distribution of respondents by Previous Information N=100

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Previous Information

No information

11

11

Inservice Education

28

28

Mass Media

46

46

Conferences and Workshops

15

15

Total

100

100

 

Table.6 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to previous information. 11% of the respondents had no information, 28% of the respondents received information from inservice education, majority 46% from mass media and 15% from conferences and workshops.

 

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by Type of Hospital

 

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Type of Hospital

Government

8

8

Private

92

92

Total

100

100

 

Table.7 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to the type of hospital. 8% of the respondents were from Government hospital and majority 92% were from private hospitals

 

Table 8: Distribution of respondents by Working Area

Demographic Variable

Nurses

Frequency

Percentage (%)

 

Working Area

ICU

22

22

Wards

56

56

Casualty and Emergency

9

9

Operation Theatre

5

5

OPD

8

8

Total

100

100

 

Table. 8 depict frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to working area. 22% of the respondents were working in Intensive care unit, majority 56% in wards, 9% in casualty and emergency department, 5% in operation theatre and 8% in Out-patient department

 

Section B: Assessment of Knowledge Regarding Biomedical Waste Management:

An attempt has been made to assess the knowledge of nurses regarding biomedical waste management. After converting the qualitative information of the knowledge into quantitative one the data were obtained from the respondents on various dimensions like ‘Definition and Classification’, ‘Segregation’, ‘Storage and Transport’, ‘Treatment’ and ‘Administrative aspects’.

 

Table 9: Overall knowledge score of respondents regarding biomedical waste management

Aspect

No. of Item

Mean

Mean Percentage

SD

Overall Knowledge

30

17.19

57.3%

4.37

 

Table.9 depicts the distribution of mean, standard deviation and mean percentage of attitude score of respondents regarding biomedical waste management. The overall mean knowledge score was 17.19±4.37, which is 57.3% of total score revealing that the nurses had nearly fifty percent of knowledge regarding biomedical waste management.

 

Table 10: Knowledge score of respondents regarding biomedical waste management N=100

S. No.

Dimensions

No. of Item

Mean

Mean Percentage

SD

1.

Definition and Classification

4

3.17

79.25%

0.82

2.

Segregation

10

5.38

53.8%

2.16

3.

Storage and Transport

3

1.78

59.33%

0.86

4.

Treatment

10

5.61

56.1%

1.54

5.

Administrative aspects

3

1.25

41.66%

0.74

 

Table.10 reveal the dimension wise distribution of mean, standard deviation and mean percentage of knowledge score of respondents regarding biomedical waste management. The mean knowledge score on Definition and Classification was (3.17±0.82) which is 79.25%. The mean knowledge score on Segregation was (5.38± 2.16) which is 53.8%. The mean knowledge score on Storage and Transport was (1.78±0.86) which is 59.33%. The mean knowledge score on Treatment was (5.61± 1.54) which is 56.1% and the mean knowledge score on Administrative aspects was (1.25±0.74) which is 41.66%.

 

Table 11: Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents based on the level of knowledge N=100

Level of Knowledge

Range

Respondents

Frequency

Percentage

Inadequate

0 – 10

8

8%

Moderate

11 – 20

66

66%

Adequate

21 – 30

26

26%

 

Table.11 depict the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents based on the knowledge levels regarding biomedical waste management. The result shows that 8% of the respondents had inadequate knowledge, majority 66% had moderate knowledge and remaining 26% had adequate knowledge regarding biomedical waste management.

 

Section C: Assessment of Attitude Regarding Biomedical waste Management:

An attempt has been made to assess the attitude of nurses regarding biomedical waste management. After converting the qualitative information of the attitude into quantitative one the data were obtained from the respondents on various aspects of biomedical waste management.

 

Table 12: Attitude score of respondents regarding biomedical waste management N=100

Aspect

No. of Item

Mean

Mean Percentage

SD

Overall Attitude

14

51.44

73.49%

4.19

 

Table. 12 reveals the distribution of mean, standard deviation and mean percentage of attitude score of respondents regarding biomedical waste management. The overall mean score of attitude was 51.44±4.19, which is 73.49% of total score revealing that the respondents had nearly seventy percent of attitude regarding biomedical waste management.

 

Table 13: Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents based on the level of attitude N=100

Level of attitude

Range

Respondents

Frequency

Percentage

Unfavourable

0 – 23

0

0%

Moderately Favourable

24 – 46

60

60%

Favourable

47 – 70

40

40%

 

Table. 13 depict the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents based on their attitude level regarding biomedical waste management. The result shows that none of the respondent had unfavourable attitude, majority 60% had moderately favourable attitude and remaining 40% had favourable attitude regarding biomedical waste management.

 

Section D: Correlation Between The Knowledge and Attitude Regarding Biomedical Waste Management:

The correlation between the knowledge and attitude regarding biomedical waste management was calculated using Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation method and the results were as given in Table.14.

 

Table 14: Correlation between knowledge and attitude score N=100

 

No. of Item

Mean

Mean Percentage

SD

Correlation

Knowledge

30

17.19

57.3%

4.37

 

0.617*

Attitude

14

51.44

73.49%

4.19

*Significant

 

Table. 14 show that the correlation between knowledge and attitude regarding biomedical waste management is 0.617, which is statistically significant.

Hence, hypothesis H1 is accepted.

 

Section E: Association Between the Knowledge Regarding Biomedical Waste Management and Selected Demographic Variables:

This section dealt with association between the knowledge and attitude regarding biomedical waste management and the demographic variables. The cross tabulation analysis was employed effectively and the results of Chi-square analysis were observed.

 

Table. 15: Association between level of knowledge and selected demographic variables as age and gender N=100

Variables

Level of Knowledge

Total

df

Chi- square

P Value

Inference

Inadequate

Moderate

Adequate

Age (in years)

20 – 25

5

48

9

62

 

 

8

 

 

20.225

 

 

0.02

 

 

S

26 – 30

1

14

6

21

31 – 35

1

2

5

8

36 – 40

1

2

5

8

Above 40

-

-

1

1

Gender

Male

1

9

1

11

 

2

 

1.846

 

0.51

 

NS

Female

7

57

25

89

S – Significant, NS – Not Significant

 

Table 16: Association between level of knowledge and selected demographic variables as professional qualification, designation and clinical experience N=100

Variables

Level of Knowledge

Total

df

Chi- square

P Value

Inference

Inadequate

Moderate

Adequate

Professional Qualification

GNM

5

46

19

70

 

 

4

 

 

10.474

 

 

0.001

 

 

S

B.Sc. (N)

3

19

3

25

Post-basic

B.Sc. (N)

-

1

4

5

Designation

Staff Nurse

8

65

25

98

 

 

4

 

 

3.375

 

 

1.68

 

 

NS

Incharge Nurse

-

-

1

1

Head Nurse

-

1

-

1

Clinical Experience

Less than

1 year

4

23

6

33

 

 

6

 

 

19.717

 

 

0.003

 

 

S

1 – 5 years

3

28

5

36

6 – 10

years

1

11

5

17

More than

10 years

-

4

10

14

S – Significant, NS – Not Significant

 

The obtained chi-square value for Gender is less than the table value, which indicates that there is no significant association between level of knowledge with selected demographic variable at 5% level of significance (P>0.05). Hence, the research hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. The obtained chi- square value for Age is greater than the table value, which indicates there is a significant association between level of knowledge with selected demographic variable at 5% level of significance (P<0.05). Hence, hypothesis H2 is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.

 

The obtained chi-square value for Designation is less than the table value, which indicates that there is no significant association between level of knowledge with selected demographic variable at 5% level of significance (P>0.05).  Hence, the research hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. The obtained chi- square value for Professional qualification and Clinical experience is greater than the table value, which indicates there is a significant association between level of knowledge with selected demographic variables at 5% level of significance (P<0.05). Hence, hypothesis H2 is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.

 

Table 17: Association between level of knowledge and selected demographic variables as previous information, type of hospital and working area N=100

Variables

Level of Knowledge

Total

df

Chi- square

P Value

Inference

Inadequate

Moderate

Adequate

Previous information

No information

2

9

-

11

 

 

6

 

 

11.237

 

 

1.42

 

 

NS

Inservice Education

1

15

12

28

Mass Media

5

31

10

46

Conferences and Workshops

-

11

4

15

Type of Hospital

Government

-

3

5

8

 

2

 

6.221

 

0.009

 

S

Private

8

63

21

92

Working Area

ICU

1

17

4

22

 

 

8

 

 

11.647

 

 

2.13

 

 

NS

Wards

6

36

14

56

Casualty and Emergency

1

5

3

9

Operation Theatre

-

1

4

5

OPD

-

7

1

8

S – Significant, NS – Not Significant

 

The obtained chi-square value for Previous information and Working area is less than the table value, which indicates that there is no significant association between level of knowledge with selected demographic variables at 5% level of significance (P>0.05). Hence, the research hypothesis is rejected and null hypothesis is accepted. The obtained chi-square value for Type of Hospital is greater than the table value, which indicates there is a significant association between level of knowledge with selected demographic variable at 5% level of significance (P<0.05). Hence, hypothesis H2 is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.

 

REFERENCES:

1.      Management of waste from hospitals and other health care establishments. Euro Report and Studies. No. 97, WHO, 2000.

2.      Gupta S, Boojh R. Waste Manag Res. 2006 Dec; 24 (6): 584-91.

3.      Miyazaki M, Une H. Waste Manag. 2005; 25 (6): 616-21.

4.      Da Silva CE, Hoppe AE, et. al. Waste Manag. 2005; 25 (6): 600-5.

5.      Garcia LP, Zanetti-Ramos BG. Cad Saude Publica. 2004 May – Jun; 20 (3): 744-52. Epub 2004 May 19.

6.      http://medind.nic.in/imvw/imvw2565.html

7.      Draft Biomedical Waste Management and Handling Rules 1998(2000). Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii).

8.      Draft Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998. Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii). Dt 16th Oct, 1998.

9.      http://isebindia.com/95_99/99-07-2.html

10.   http://cpreec.org/pubbook-biomedical.html

11.   ST Jayanth et. al. Needle Stick injuries in a tertiary care hospital. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2009, Vol.27, Issue I, Page: 44-47.

12.   Safe health care waste management, World Health Organization (WHO) Policy Paper, August; 2004.

13.   AIDE-MEMOIRE by World Health Organization (WHO) courtesy: Dept. of Protection of the Human Environment, Water, Sanitation and Health; 2000- 2002.

14.   Patil AD, Shekdar AV. J Environ Manage. 2001 Oct; 63 (2): 211-20.

15.   George JB. Nursing theories. The base for professional nursing practice, 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Mosby ;1997

16.   http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/theory%20clusters/communicati on%20processes/system_theory.doc/

17.   http://www.education4skills.com/phc/phc_m3.html

18.   Polit FD, Hungler PB. Nursing research principles and methods. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincot Company; 1999.

19.   Nancy Burns, Susan Grove K. Understanding Nursing Research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders Company; 2004.

20.   Patil AD, Shekdar AV. J Environ Manage. 2001 Oct; 63 (2): 211-20.

21.   George JB. Nursing theories. The base for professional nursing practice, 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Mosby ;1997

22.   http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/theory%20clusters/communicati on%20processes/system_theory.doc/

23.   http://www.education4skills.com/phc/phc_m3.html

24.   Polit FD, Hungler PB. Nursing research principles and methods. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincot Company; 1999.

25.   Nancy Burns, Susan Grove K. Understanding Nursing Research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders Company; 2004.

26.   Donna L. Wong, Marilyn Hockenberry-Earton, Marilyn L. Winkelstein, David Wilson, Elizabeth Ahmann, Pamila A. Davito-Thomas et al. Whaley and Wong’s nursing care of infants and children: Developing sense of autonomy, promoting optimum growth and development of toddlers and family. 6th edition. Missouri: Sally Schaefer; 1999. P. 663-6.

27.   Patil AD, Shekdar AV. J Environ Manage. 2001 Oct; 63 (2): 211-20.

28.   George JB. Nursing theories. The base for professional nursing practice, 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Mosby;1997

 

 

 

Received on 15.04.2022             Modified on 18.09.2022

Accepted on 14.12.2022        ©A&V Publications All right reserved

Asian J. Nursing Education and Research. 2023; 13(2):145-150.

DOI: 10.52711/2349-2996.2023.00032