↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of occupational hazards and safety practices in Nigerian healthcare workers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
1 Facebook page


60 Dimensions

Readers on

528 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.
Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of occupational hazards and safety practices in Nigerian healthcare workers
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-1880-2
Pubmed ID

Olufemi Oludare Aluko, Ayobami Emmanuel Adebayo, Titilayo Florence Adebisi, Mathew Kolawole Ewegbemi, Abiodun Tolani Abidoye, Bukola Faith Popoola


By profession, healthcare workers (HCWs) attend to clients and patients through a variety of preventive and curative services. However, while their attention is focused on providing care, they are vulnerable to hazards that could be detrimental to their health and well-being. This is especially true in developing countries where health service delivery is fraught with minimal protective precautions against exposures to numerous fomites and infectious agents. This study assessed the workplace hazards and safety practices by selected HCWs in a typical health care facility (HCF) in Nigeria. The study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design and stratified sampling technique to identify 290 respondents. The study used mixed methodology and collected data by validated instruments with resulting data analyzed by IBM-SPSS, version 20. The results showed that over half of the respondents were registered nurses, female, married (61.7 %) with 5 years median work experience (70.3 %). Most respondents (89 %) were knowledgeable about hazards in HCFs, identified recapping used needles as a risky practice (70 %) and recognized that effective hand washing prior to, and after every clinical procedure in preventing cross infection (100 %). Also, most respondents (96.2 %) believed they were at risk of occupational hazards while about two-thirds perceived the risk as high. In addition, only 64.2 and 87.2 % had completed Hepatitis B and Tetanus immunizations, respectively. Only 52.1 % "always" complied with standard procedures and most (93.8 %) practice safe disposal of sharps (93.8 %) while those that did not (40 %) generally implicated lack of basic safety equipment. In this study, the practice of hand washing by respondents was not influenced by occupation and education. The high level of knowledge demonstrated by respondents was at variance with practice, therefore, measures aimed at promoting safety practices and, minimizing exposure to hazards such as; provision of safety equipment, pre-placement and routine training of staff on safety practices and adequate reinforcement of staff capacity and capability through drills in all HCFs should be institutionalized and made mandatory. The protocol of the safety training and drills should be responsive to evidence-based emerging and sectoral safety challenges.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 528 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 527 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 120 23%
Student > Bachelor 71 13%
Student > Postgraduate 45 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 8%
Researcher 28 5%
Other 91 17%
Unknown 133 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 114 22%
Environmental Science 25 5%
Engineering 21 4%
Social Sciences 20 4%
Other 81 15%
Unknown 147 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
of 20,028,080 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
of 3,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 366,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,028,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 366,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them