↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, predictors and economic burden of morbidities among waste-pickers of Mumbai, India: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Prevalence, predictors and economic burden of morbidities among waste-pickers of Mumbai, India: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12995-017-0176-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Praveen Chokhandre, Shrikant Singh, Gyan Chandra Kashyap

Abstract

The occupation of waste-picking characterised as 3Ds - dangerous, drudgery and demanding. In this context, the study aimed to assess occupational morbidities among the waste-pickers and attempts to identify potential individual level risk factors enhancing health risks. Additionally, economic burden of morbidities has been assessed. The burden of the morbidities was assessed and compared with a comparison group through a cross-sectional survey. Waste-pickers (n = 200) and a comparison group (n = 103) working for at least a year were randomly selected from the communities living on the edge of the Deonar dumping site. The difference in the prevalence of morbidities was tested using the chi-square test. The effect of waste picking resulting the development of morbidities was assessed using the propensity score matching (PSM) method. A multivariate logistic regression model was employed to identify the individual risk factors. T-test has been employed in order to analyse the difference in health care expenditure between waste pickers and non-waste pickers. The prevalence of morbidities was significantly higher among the waste-pickers, particularly for injuries (75%), respiratory illness (28%), eye infection (29%), and stomach problems (32%), compared to the comparison group (17%, 15%, 18%, and 19% respectively). The results of the PSM method highlighted that waste-picking raised the risk of morbidity for injuries (62%) and respiratory illness (13%). Results of logistic regression suggest that low level of hygiene practices [household cleanliness (OR = 3.23, p < 0.00), non-use of soap before meals (OR = 2.65, p < 0.05)] and use of recyclable items as a cooking fuel (OR = 2.12, p < 0.03) enhanced health risks among the waste pickers when adjusted for the age, duration of work, duration of stay in community and substance use. Additionally, the high prevalence of morbidities among waste pickers resulted into higher healthcare expenditure. Findings of the study suggest that not only healthcare expenditure but persistence of illness and work days lost due to injury/illness is significantly higher among waste pickers compared to non-waste pickers. The study concluded that waste-picking raised the risk of morbidities as also expenditure on healthcare. Results from the study recommend several measures to lessen the morbidities and thereby incurred healthcare expenditure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Engineering 8 9%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Environmental Science 7 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 6%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#274
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,437
of 324,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 324,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.