↓ Skip to main content

Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in western Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
41 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in western Kenya
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3923-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Anne Jessie Cook, William Anson de Glanville, Lian Francesca Thomas, Samuel Kariuki, Barend Mark de Clare Bronsvoort, Eric Maurice Fèvre

Abstract

Inadequate facilities and hygiene at slaughterhouses can result in contamination of meat and occupational hazards to workers. The objectives of this study were to assess current conditions in slaughterhouses in western Kenya and the knowledge, and practices of the slaughterhouse workers toward hygiene and sanitation. Between February and October 2012 all consenting slaughterhouses in the study area were recruited. A standardised questionnaire relating to facilities and practices in the slaughterhouse was administered to the foreperson at each site. A second questionnaire was used to capture individual slaughterhouse workers' knowledge, practices and recent health events. A total of 738 slaughterhouse workers from 142 slaughterhouses completed questionnaires. Many slaughterhouses had poor infrastructure, 65% (95% CI 63-67%) had a roof, cement floor and walls, 60% (95% CI 57-62%) had a toilet and 20% (95% CI 18-22%) had hand-washing facilities. The meat inspector visited 90% (95% CI 92-95%) of slaughterhouses but antemortem inspection was practiced at only 7% (95% CI 6-8%). Nine percent (95% CI 7-10%) of slaughterhouses slaughtered sick animals. Only half of workers wore personal protective clothing - 53% (95% CI 51-55%) wore protective coats and 49% (95% CI 46-51%) wore rubber boots. Knowledge of zoonotic disease was low with only 31% (95% CI 29-33%) of workers aware that disease could be transmitted from animals. The current working conditions in slaughterhouses in western Kenya are not in line with the recommendations of the Meat Control Act of Kenya. Current facilities and practices may increase occupational exposure to disease or injury and contaminated meat may enter the consumer market. The findings of this study could enable the development of appropriate interventions to minimise public health risks. Initially, improvements need to be made to facilities and practices to improve worker safety and reduce the risk of food contamination. Simultaneously, training programmes should target workers and inspectors to improve awareness of the risks. In addition, education of health care workers should highlight the increased risks of injury and disease in slaughterhouse workers. Finally, enhanced surveillance, targeting slaughterhouse workers could be used to detect disease outbreaks. This "One Health" approach to disease surveillance is likely to benefit workers, producers and consumers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 20%
Student > Bachelor 34 14%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 5%
Lecturer 10 4%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 81 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 34 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Environmental Science 12 5%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 89 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2022.
All research outputs
#705,858
of 21,750,593 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#721
of 14,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,760
of 421,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#57
of 861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,750,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.