Knowledge among Health care workers (HCWs) regarding biomedical waste management (BMW) during COVID-19 Pandemic

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-16

This study assessed healthcare workers' knowledge of biomedical waste management during COVID-19, finding doctors had the highest mean knowledge score, followed by nurses, with sanitary attendants scoring the lowest.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-16 · read from full text

This paper assessed knowledge among healthcare workers about biomedical waste management during the COVID-19 pandemic, using an assessment of HCWs’ understanding of BMW practices. The main finding was an overall evaluation of HCWs’ knowledge levels regarding biomedical waste management in the pandemic context. The paper’s primary limitation, implied by its focus on knowledge assessment, is that it does not directly measure waste management performance or patient/outcome impacts. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

To study the knowledge and attitude among healthcare workers regarding bio-medical waste management at SKIMS, a cross- sectional study in prospective design was conducted in randomly selected areas.The study population included doctors, nurses, technician and sanitary staff. A semi-structured questionnaire was adapted from different research papers was used as a study tool. Observation revealed that among the entire study group doctors had a highest mean knowledge score, followed by nursing staff.Lowest mean knowledge score was found in sanitary attendants. There was a significant difference is mean knowledge score of postgraduate nurses who had a higher mean knowledge score compared to undergraduates having a mean knowledge score.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-24T02:00:01.246996+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0