ABSTRACT
Improper healthcare waste management (HCWM) poses a serious public health problem worldwide. Primary health centres (PHCs) provide public health and medical care services as the basic structural and functional units of healthcare services in Myanmar. However, no study has been conducted in Myanmar about HCWM at PHCs. This study aims to assess the practice of HCWM at PHCs in Mon State, Myanmar. A cross-sectional study was conducted in all ten townships in Mon State, Myanmar. In total, 93 PHCs (71 non-hospitals and 22 hospitals) were selected using simple random sampling. The observational checklist which was developed based on the World Health Organization’s standard guideline procedure of HCWM was used to determine the practice of HCWM at PHCs. Binary logistic regression was used for final data analysis. The burning in pits method was used as the final disposal method of healthcare waste in 78.5% of PHCs. Non-hospital type PHC were more likely not to have colour coding system for HCWM (odds ratio [OR] 7.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.15–26.52), did not have equipment for accidental spillage of healthcare waste (OR 3.92; 95% CI 1.3–11.77) and did not have separate staff for HCWM (OR 8.27; 95% CI 2.77–24.64), relative to hospitals. Non-hospital type PHCs practices poorly on the colour coding for waste segregation, assigning separate staff for HCWM, and possessing equipment for accidental spillage of healthcare waste than hospital type PHCs. The Ministry of Health and Sports should issue technical guidelines of safe HCWM as a compulsory policy for both hospitals and non-hospital type PHCs.
Key Words: healthcare waste management, healthcare waste, medical waste, primary health centres, Mon State
INTRODUCTION
Improper healthcare waste management (HCWM) poses a serious public health problem worldwide. Approximately, 5.2 million people, including children, die every year due to waste-related diseases.1 Healthcare waste (HCW) carries higher risk of infection and injuries than other types of waste.2 An epidemiological study indicated that infected needle-stick injuries can increase the risks of acquiring HBV, HCV and HIV.2 The direct and indirect consequences of improper HCWM includes intentional reuse of disposable materials, air pollution, and production of toxic emissions due to inadequate burning of medical waste, which lead to significant impacts on the environment.3,4
In addition, the disposal methods impact directly on the individuals who are working in the healthcare facilities and on their community.4,5 Multi-use medical devices and single-use medical devices require safe disposal methods.6 In Bangladesh, 80% of HCW was reportedly disposed of improperly by throwing away with general waste, burying and burning in open spaces without any precautions.7 HCW contains infectious and hazardous agents that can pose health risks to those exposed.2,4 Hence, improper HCWM could lead to infections such as HIV, HBV, HCV, and other viral infections via contaminated sharp waste.2
HCW includes all waste from healthcare research facilities, and laboratories.8 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), HCW is categorized by hazardous HCW and non-hazardous HCW. Hazardous HCW includes sharps, pathological, infectious, pharmaceutical and cytotoxic, chemical and radioactive waste. Waste that does not cause any particular biological, chemical, radioactive or physical hazard is classified as non-hazardous waste. In addition, HCW includes waste produced from minor or scattered sources, including home dialysis, self-administration of insulin, and recuperative care.8 In total, 75% to 90% of general HCW produced in healthcare activities were non-hazardous waste. The remaining 10% to 25% were hazardous waste that can cause a variety of environmental and health risks due to improper HCWM.2,3,8,9
The practices of HCWM greatly vary by country.10 Many Southeast Asian countries are facing significant challenges to handle HCW due to low socio-economic conditions and, lack of HCWM regulation, training, and treatment technologies.11 A number of healthcare facilities in developing countries do not appropriately manage their HCW. Particularly, infectious and hazardous wastes are not effectively segregated.10,11 The amount of HCW in developing countries is increasing due to the expansion of healthcare systems and healthcare services.12 To improve HCWM, an evidence-based regulatory framework is needed. It would be used to evaluate the appropriateness of HCWM according to its compliance with the regulation.11
HCW should be segregated according to the standardized procedures, which will reduce HCW related threats to healthcare workers, disposal cost and the cost of treatment.13,14 Proper management of HCW requires a combination of proper waste handling during generation, collection, storage, transportation and treatment.15,16 Identification of the causes of mismanagement and creation of supportive measures in the system are essential to develop HCWM procedures and guidelines.13,15 Safe HCWM procedures should be reflected in budget allocation for HCWM, proper disposal methods, treatment guidelines and technologies including colour coding practices.
Primary health centre (PHCs) are the basic structural and functional units of health care services.9 In Myanmar, township hospitals, station hospitals, urban and rural health centres and their sub-centres provide primary health care services under the guidance of township health departments, as a back bone of the country’s health system.17 The PHCs produces a considerable amount of HCW per years. However, no study on HCWM at PHCs level has been conducted in Myanmar. The colour coding practices of HCW at PHCs have not been reported. Therefore, this study assessed the current situation of HCWM at PHCs in Mon State, Myanmar. The findings of this study will be submitted to the Ministry of Health and Sports, Myanmar. They will be expected to be applied in the development of National standard operating procedures (SOPs) or guidelines for HCWM in healthcare facilities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study subjects
A cross-sectional study was carried out in all ten townships in Mon State, Myanmar from June to August, 2016. Mon State is located in the South Myanmar, which consists of two districts, namely Mawlamyaing and Tha Hton. These districts make up ten townships, namely, Mawlamyaing, Chaung Zone, Kyaikmayaw, Mudon, Thanbyuzayut, Ye, Paung, Tha Hton, Belin and Kyaikhto. Among them, Chaung Zone Township is located at Belu Island. According to the 2014 census, Mon State with a population of more than two million, was the fourth most population dense area (167 people per square kilometer).
In Mon State, 407 PHCs provide health services; eight township hospitals, 27 station hospitals, 66 rural and urban health centres and 306 sub-centres. Among the 407 PHCs listed by State Public Health Department, 105 PHCs were selected by simple random sampling. Excluding 12 (11.4%) PHCs not accessible during the survey period due to weather conditions, the remaining 93 PHCs were selected for this study. All selected PHCs responded to this study.
Study measures
A checklist based on direct observation was used to determine the practice of HCWM of PHCs. The checklist contained 21 items as checking points was developed by referring to the WHO guideline of safe management of wastes from healthcare activities.3 The checklist included minimum required level of safe management of waste from healthcare facilities.
The checklist was pre-tested at ten PHCs in Dekhina Thiri Township, Nay Pyi Taw, the Union Territory. A researcher corrected inconsistencies before finalizing the checklist. The modified checklist was used in this study. In each PHC, the HCWM practices were observed by a researcher using the checklist. It took approximately 30 to 45 minutes to check activities of HCW handling at each PHC.
Data analysis
Data were coded, entered and analyzed using Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS) software program version 24.0 (IBM SPSS Inc.). Frequency distribution and percentage were used for categorical variables. After that, chi-squared and Fisher’s exact test were used. A logistic regression model was applied to estimate unadjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Ethical considerations
The Ethical Committee for Human Research of the University of Public Health, Yangon, Myanmar, approved this study [Reference no. Ethical (4/2016)]. Before visiting the PHCs, the objectives of the study were explained to the responsible persons of each PHC. If the responsible persons agreed to participate after reading the informed consent form, they were requested to sign the form and the PHC was included in the study. Individual names and confidential information on PHCs were not recorded, and were being analysed anonymously.
RESULTS
As shown in Table 1, a total of 93 PHCs (71 non-hospitals and 22 hospitals) were studied. Among them, 35.5% of PHCs belonged to Tha Hton District and 64.5% belonged to Mawlamyaing District. The estimated area of each site was between 2,401 and 40,000 square-feet for 55.9% of PHCs, and 43.0% of PHCs disposed of 11 to 100 kilograms of HCW per month. About half of PHCs (55.9%) provided health services to less than ten patients per day. It was also found that 88.2% of PHCs did not have supporting facilities for HCWM. Burning in pits was used in 78.5% of PHCs, as final disposal method of HCW including sharps.
Table 1. Characteristics of primary health centres in Mon State, Myanmar (N=93).
| Characteristics | Non-hospitals | Hospitals | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | n | (%) | N | (%) | |||
| Districts | ||||||||
| Tha Hton District | 24 | (33.8) | 9 | (40.9) | 33 | (35.5) | ||
| Mawlamyaing District | 47 | (66.2) | 13 | (59.1) | 60 | (64.5) | ||
| Townships | ||||||||
| Paung Township | 6 | ( 8.5) | 3 | (13.6) | 9 | ( 9.7) | ||
| Tha Hton Township | 8 | (11.3) | 1 | ( 4.5) | 9 | ( 9.7) | ||
| Belin Township | 3 | ( 4.2) | 3 | (13.6) | 6 | ( 6.5) | ||
| Kyaik Hto Township | 7 | ( 9.9) | 2 | ( 9.1) | 9 | ( 9.7) | ||
| Mawlamyaing Township | 9 | (12.7) | 1 | ( 4.5) | 10 | (10.8) | ||
| Kyaikmayaw Township | 8 | (11.3) | 2 | ( 9.1) | 10 | (10.8) | ||
| Mudon Township | 8 | (11.3) | 2 | ( 9.1) | 10 | (10.8) | ||
| Thanbyuzayut Township | 7 | ( 9.9) | 3 | (13.6) | 10 | (10.8) | ||
| Ye Township | 9 | (12.7) | 1 | ( 4.5) | 10 | (10.8) | ||
| Chaung Zone Township | 6 | ( 8.5) | 4 | (18.2) | 10 | (10.8) | ||
| Daily number of patients (number/day) | ||||||||
| –10 | 50 | (70.4) | 2 | ( 9.1) | 52 | (55.9) | ||
| 11–20 | 15 | (21.1) | 6 | (27.3) | 21 | (22.6) | ||
| 21–30 | 4 | ( 5.6) | 7 | (31.8) | 11 | (11.8) | ||
| 31–40 | 1 | ( 1.4) | 3 | (13.6) | 4 | ( 4.3) | ||
| 40– | 1 | ( 1.4) | 4 | (18.2) | 5 | ( 5.4) | ||
| Estimated area of compound (sq-ft) | ||||||||
| –2400 | 16 | (22.5) | 0 | ( 0.0) | 16 | (17.2) | ||
| 2401–10000 | 27 | (38.0) | 0 | ( 0.0) | 27 | (29.0) | ||
| 10001–40000 | 22 | (31.0) | 3 | (13.6) | 25 | (26.9) | ||
| 40001– | 6 | ( 8.5) | 19 | (86.4) | 25 | (26.9) | ||
| Average of monthly total waste (kg/month) | ||||||||
| –10 | 37 | (52.1) | 0 | ( 0.0) | 37 | (39.8) | ||
| 11–100 | 33 | (46.5) | 7 | (31.8) | 40 | (43.0) | ||
| 101– | 1 | ( 1.4) | 15 | (68.2) | 16 | (17.2) | ||
| Supporting facilities for HCWM* | ||||||||
| No | 63 | (88.7) | 19 | (86.4) | 82 | (88.2) | ||
| Yes | 8 | (11.3) | 3 | (13.6) | 11 | (11.8) | ||
| Final disposal methods | ||||||||
| Burial in pits | 6 | ( 8.5) | 0 | ( 0.0) | 6 | ( 6.5) | ||
| Burning in pits | 59 | (83.1) | 14 | (63.6) | 73 | (78.5) | ||
| Incineration | 3 | ( 4.2) | 5 | (22.7) | 8 | ( 8.6) | ||
| Municipal plan | 2 | ( 2.8) | 2 | ( 9.1) | 4 | ( 4.3) | ||
| Open burning | 1 | ( 1.4) | 1 | ( 4.5) | 2 | ( 2.2) | ||
*healthcare waste management
Table 2 presents practice of healthcare waste management at primary health centres. In total, 95.5% of hospital type PHCs, and 74.6% of non-hospital type PHCs reported to have proper containers for HCW (p = 0.037). Regarding usage colour coding on HCWM, 36.4% of hospital type PHCs, and 7.0% of non-hospital type PHCs practiced the proper labelling practices on HCWM (p = 0.002). Hospital type PHCs (54.5%) assigned separate staff to handle HCWM, while only 12.7% of non-hospital type PHCs assigned separate staff to handle HCWM (p < 0.001).
Table 2. Practice on healthcare waste management at primary health centres (N=93).
| Characteristics | Non-hospitals | Hospitals | p-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | n | (%) | ||||
| Proper containers for waste | 1.000 | ||||||
| No | 3 | ( 4.2) | 0 | ( 0.0) | |||
| Yes | 68 | (95.8) | 22 | (100.0) | |||
| Proper containers for HCW* | 0.037 | ||||||
| No | 18 | (25.4) | 1 | ( 4.5) | |||
| Yes | 53 | (74.6) | 21 | (95.5) | |||
| Cleaning materials for HCWM | 0.192 | ||||||
| No | 7 | ( 9.9) | 0 | ( 0.0) | |||
| Yes | 64 | (90.1) | 22 | (100.0) | |||
| Segregation of HCW from other waste stream | 0.193 | ||||||
| No | 24 | (33.8) | 4 | (18.2) | |||
| Yes | 47 | (66.2) | 18 | (81.8) | |||
| Different containers according to types of HCW* | 0.214 | ||||||
| No | 32 | (45.1) | 6 | (27.3) | |||
| Yes | 39 | (54.9) | 16 | (72.7) | |||
| Proper container for infectious waste | 0.035 | ||||||
| No | 14 | (19.7) | 0 | ( 0.0) | |||
| Yes | 57 | (80.3) | 22 | (100.0) | |||
| Proper container for sharp waste | 1.000 | ||||||
| No | 15 | (21.1) | 5 | (22.7) | |||
| Yes | 56 | (78.9) | 17 | (77.3) | |||
| Proper container for general waste | 0.142 | ||||||
| No | 19 | (26.8) | 2 | ( 9.1) | |||
| Yes | 52 | (73.2) | 20 | (90.9) | |||
| Proper labelling on waste containers | 0.087 | ||||||
| No | 67 | (94.4) | 18 | (81.8) | |||
| Yes | 4 | ( 5.6) | 4 | (18.2) | |||
| Clearly defined procedure for HCWM | 0.138 | ||||||
| No | 70 | (98.6) | 20 | (90.9) | |||
| Yes | 1 | ( 1.4) | 2 | ( 9.1) | |||
| Colour coding on HCWM | 0.002 | ||||||
| No | 66 | (93.0) | 14 | (63.6) | |||
| Yes | 5 | ( 7.0) | 8 | (36.4) | |||
| Final disposal for segregated waste | 0.754 | ||||||
| No | 13 | (18.3) | 3 | (13.6) | |||
| Yes | 58 | (81.7) | 19 | (86.4) | |||
| Storage area for waste awaiting disposal | 0.754 | ||||||
| No | 58 | (81.7) | 19 | (86.4) | |||
| Yes | 13 | (18.3) | 3 | (13.6) | |||
| Disinfection before final disposal | 0.084 | ||||||
| No | 69 | (97.2) | 19 | (86.4) | |||
| Yes | 2 | ( 2.8) | 3 | (13.6) | |||
| Equipment for accidental spillage of HCW * | 0.014 | ||||||
| No | 38 | (53.5) | 5 | (22.7) | |||
| Yes | 33 | (46.5) | 17 | (77.3) | |||
| Hand washing facilities | 0.109 | ||||||
| No | 9 | (12.7) | 0 | ( 0.0) | |||
| Yes | 62 | (87.3) | 22 | (100.0) | |||
| Separate staff for HCWM | <0.001 | ||||||
| No | 62 | (87.3) | 10 | (45.5) | |||
| Yes | 9 | (12.7) | 12 | (54.5) | |||
| Sufficient support for personal protective equipment | 0.079 | ||||||
| No | 48 | (67.6) | 10 | (45.5) | |||
| Yes | 23 | (32.4) | 12 | (54.5) | |||
| Sufficient Usage of personal protective equipment | 0.079 | ||||||
| No | 48 | (67.6) | 10 | (45.5) | |||
| Yes | 23 | (32.4) | 12 | (54.5) | |||
*healthcare waste
As shown in Table 3, non-hospital type PHCs were more likely not to have colour coding system for HCWM (OR 7.54; 95% CI 2.15–26.52), did not have equipment for accidental spillage of HCW (OR 3.92; 95% CI 1.3–11.77), and did not have separate staff for HCWM (OR 8.27; 95% CI 2.77–24.64). There were no significant differences in other practices between non-hospital and hospital type PHCs, although the OR was greater than three for proper containers for HCW (OR 7.13), proper containers for general waste (OR 3.65), proper labelling on waste containers (OR 3.72), clearly defined procedures for HCWM (OR 7.00), and disinfection before final disposal (OR 5.45).
Table 3. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of non-hospitals for poor practice of healthcare waste management relative to hospitals (N=93).
| Poor management | OR | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|
| Proper containers for HCW * | 7.13 | 0.89-56.87 |
| Segregation of HCW* from other waste stream | 2.30 | 0.70-7.55 |
| Different containers according to types of HCW* | 2.19 | 0.77-6.24 |
| Proper container for sharp waste | 0.91 | 0.29-2.87 |
| Proper container for general waste | 3.65 | 0.78-17.14 |
| Proper labelling on waste containers | 3.72 | 0.85-16.36 |
| Clearly defined procedure for HCWM | 7.00 | 0.60-81.23 |
| Colour coding on HCWM | 7.54 | 2.15-26.52 |
| Final disposal for segregated waste | 1.42 | 0.37-5.52 |
| Storage area for waste awaiting disposal | 0.70 | 0.18-2.74 |
| Disinfection before final disposal | 5.45 | 0.85-34.99 |
| Equipment for accidental spillage of HCW* | 3.92 | 1.30-11.77 |
| Separate staff for HCWM | 8.27 | 2.77-24.64 |
| Sufficient support for personal protective equipment | 2.50 | 0.94-6.64 |
| Sufficient Usage of personal protective equipment | 2.50 | 0.94-6.64 |
*healthcare waste
DISCUSSION
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the factors associated with the current practice of HCWM at PHCs in Myanmar. The PHCs were categorized into hospital type PHCs and non-hospital type PHCs. The study revealed that non-hospital type PHCs were more likely not to have colour coding system for HCWM, did not have equipment for accidental spillage of HCW, and did not have separate staff for HCWM compared to hospital type PHCs. It was also shown that 78.5% of PHCs used burning in pits as their final disposal method of HCW including sharps, and 8.6% of PHCs used incineration as the final disposal method. In total, 32.4% of non-hospital type PHCs, and 54.5% of hospital type PHCs had sufficiently supported personal protective equipment (PPE) by State Health Department where adequate usage of PPE was observed.
The findings showed that the non-hospital type PHCs were nearly eight times more likely not to practice colour coding for HCWM than hospital type PHCs. This indicated that the WHO waste segregation method which recommended using a colour coding system was inadequately applied in non-hospital type PHCs setting. This result was in line with the study conducted in community-level clinics in Shan State of Myanmar, where only 6.0% of health facilities practiced colour coding for waste segregation.18 Previous studies reported that only 10.0% of health facilities practiced colour coding in Tanzania19 and 75.0% of public and 33.3% of private hospitals used colour coding for HCWM in Pakistan.20
The assignment of separate staff for HCWM was an important factor to practice HCWM at PHCs level. This study revealed that non-hospital type PHCs were eight times more likely not to have separate staff for HCWM than hospital type PHCs. This may be because non-hospital type PHCs produce less HCW than hospital type PHCs. In addition, non-hospital type PHCs may have less opportunity to access the updated information on HCWM. Although the risk of acquiring infection may be smaller in non-hospital type PHCs than in hospital type PHCs due to limited number of patients, the risk in non-hospital type PHCs should not be ignored. According to WHO, one person should be designated for the handling of HCW where HCW are produced.3 The Ministry of Health and Sports of Myanmar may consider assigning a separate staff member for HCW handling in PHCs as a compulsory policy for all levels of health facilities where HCW are produced. HCW handling is a fundamental issue since it can pose a potential health risk to the health workforce.
Regarding equipment for accidental spillage of HCW, 17 hospital type PHCs and 33 non-hospital type PHCs among the 93 PHCs possessed that equipment. The study showed that non-hospital type PHCs were four times more likely not to have equipment for accidental spillage of HCW than hospitals. For dangerous spillage of hazardous chemicals or infectious HCW, cleaning procedures need to prevent transmission of infection. A possible reason for this finding may be lack of consensus to accept responsibility for use of equipment for accidental spillage of HCW. Since hospitals type PHCs produce more HCW than non-hospital type PHCs, the priority might be lower for the provision and/or there may be inadequate PPE in non-hospital type PHCs. Regardless of the type of health facilities (hospital type PHCs or non-hospital type PHCs), the necessary PPE should be readily available at all times.
As described above, 78.5% of PHCs used a method of burning in pits as their final disposal of HCW including sharps. Most of the pits were not fenced and the sharp waste was mixed with general waste during burning, even though segregation was performed. As a result, the wastes were incompletely burnt, possibly leading to the risk of transmitting infections due to breakdown of those wastes in the shallow pits.20,21 Moreover, in the studied PHCs, many of the incinerators were made without chimneys and/or chimney drain. In addition, those incinerators did not have a waste feeding and ash removing door. Burning was the major waste disposal mechanism in most PHCs but most of the incinerators were working poorly, such as running with low temperatures, and improper emission control systems, which may lead to severe environmental pollution to the surrounding areas. The burning of pharmaceuticals and cytotoxic drugs needs to be carried out in well-functioning incinerators at proper and standard temperatures with facilities for emission control.22,23 The PHCs should have the incinerators working appropriately and enforce proper maintenance procedures.
In this study, PPE was sufficiently supported in 37.6% of PHCs where adequate usage of PPE was observed. It implied that the PHCs that were not provided with PPE had never used PPE. The possible reasons for non-use of PPE may be lack of provision of PPE, lack of knowledge about hazards due to unsafe HCWM, or dislike of using PPE because it is uncomfortable.24 PPE should be made up of locally adaptable things. Moreover, State Health Department need to provide safe handling of HCW training, encourage proper and consistent use of PPE, and provide hand washing materials and facilities.
This study had several limitations. First, PHCs were selected depending on accessibility of PHCs during the survey period. Among 105 PHCs randomly selected from all ten townships in Mon State, 11.4% of PHCs were difficult to reach due to weather conditions. Second, the sample size was small, and the subjects were sampled from only Mon State, which may limit generalizability to other States and Regions of Myanmar. Third, in this study only the category of PHCs (hospital and non-hospital types) was considered as a factor to explore the practice of healthcare waste management due to small sample size. Further study may consider to increase the sample size and include other possible factors such as average number of waste, daily number of patients, and supporting facilities for HCWM. Last, this study did not collect and evaluate the actual costs of HCWM information of each PHC. In this study, one researcher conducted the survey with a checklist through observation, so the results are relatively objective and there is no inter-observer variation in the data.
This study was conducted in PHCs, basic functional units providing healthcare services in Myanmar, in order to explore the current situation of HCWM at the PHCs level. The study findings might be applicable for the development of National SOPs or guideline for HCWM in healthcare facilities in Myanmar. In addition, this study can be used as an initial step for further studies such as longitudinal and qualitative studies to obtain more information to find effective solutions for safe HCWM.
In conclusion, this study provided useful information on the current practice of HCWM at PHCs in Mon State, Myanmar. It revealed that non-hospital type PHCs had worse practice on colour coding for waste segregation, no separate staff assigned for HCWM, and no equipment for accidental spillage for HCW. Furthermore, a majority of the PHCs used burning in pits as their final disposal method of HCW, and displayed insufficient usage of PPE. The State Health Department need to provide HCWM training and sufficient PPE to all PHCs in Mon State. At the National level, the Ministry of Health and Sports should issue technical guidelines for safe HCWM and SOPs as a compulsory policy for all healthcare facilities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to convey our sincere thanks to staff from Occupational and Environmental Health Division, for assisting us to collect the data, and staff of the studied PHCs in Mon State, Department of Health, Ministry of Health and Sports, Myanmar.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
REFERENCES
- 1.Nasima A. Medical waste management: a review on environmental engineering program, School of environment, resources and development. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology Press; 2000.
- 2.Salkin IF. Review of health impacts from microbiological hazards in health-care waste. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
- 3.World Health Organization. In: Safe management of wastes from healthcare activities. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014:Chapter 1,7,11 and 12.
- 4.Manyele SV, Anicetus H. Management of medical waste in Tanzanian hospitals. Tanzan Health Res Bull, 2006;8(3):177–182. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.Beltrami EM, Williams IT, Shapiro CN, Chamberland ME. Risk and management of blood-borne infections in healthcare workers. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13(3):385–407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 6.Windfeld ES, Brooks MS. Medical waste management – a review. J Environ Manage. 2015;163:98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 7.Sarker MA, Harun-Or-Rashid M, Hirosawa T, et al. Evaluation of knowledge, practices and possible barriers among healthcare providers regarding medical waste management in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:2590–2597. doi: 10.12659/MSM.890904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 8.Badar S, Saeed MA, Yasmeen S, Hussain W, Amjad MA, Abbas H. Health care waste management practices in public and private sector hospitals. J Rawal Med Coll. 2014;18(1):145–147.
- 9.World Health Organization. Healthcare waste management, an Integral component of health investment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
- 10.Verma LK, Mani S, Sinha N, Rana S. Biomedical waste management in nursing homes and smaller hospitals in Delhi. Waste Manag. 2008;28(12):2723–2734. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 11.Caniato M, Tudor T, Vaccari M. International governance structures for health-care waste management: a systemic review of scientific literature. J Environ Manage. 2015;153:93–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.039. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 12.Kühling JG, Pieper U. Management of healthcare waste: developments in Southeast Asia in the twenty-first century. Waste Manag Res. 2012;30(Suppl 9):100–104. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 13.Shinee E, Gombojav E, Nishimura A, Hamajima N, Ito K. Healthcare waste management in the capital city of Mongolia. Waste Manag. 2008;28(2):435–441. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.12.022 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 14.Avier M, Walelegn W, Zemichael G. Assessment of health care waste segregation practice and associated factors of health care workers in Gonder University Hospital, North West Ethiopia. Univers J Public Health. 2014;2:201–207. doi: 10.13189/ujph.2014.020703. [DOI]
- 15.Manyele SV. Effects of improper hospital-waste management on occupational health and safety. Afr Newsletter Occup Health Safety. 2004;14:30–33.
- 16.Malekahmadi F, Yunesian M, Yaghamaein K, Nadafi K. Analysis of the healthcare waste management status in Tehran hospitals. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2014;12(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s40201-014-0116-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 17.Ministry of Health and Sports (MOHS), Myanmar. Health in Myanmar. Naypyitaw: MOHS; 2014.
- 18.Taung GS. Study on environmental health situation in healthcare setting (general practitioner clinics) at Lashio. Myanmar: University of Public Health; 2010.
- 19.Manyele SV, Lyasenga TJ. Factors affecting medical waste management in low-level health facilities in Tanzania. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2010;4(5):304–318.
- 20.Badar S, Saeed MA, Yasmeen S, Hussain W, Amjad MA, Abbas H. Healthcare waste management practices in Public and Private sector hospitals. J Rawal Med Coll. 2014;18:145–147.
- 21.Ozkan A. Evaluation of healthcare waste treatment/disposal alternatives by using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Waste Manag Res. 2013;31(2):141–149. doi: 10.1177/0734242X12471578. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 22.Ramesh K, Ejaz AK, Jamil A, Muhammad IM. Healthcare waste management in Pakistan: current situation and training options. J Ayub Med Coll. 2010;22:101–105. [PubMed]
- 23.Ngwuluka N, Ochekpe N, Odumosu P, Sunday J. A waste management in healthcare establishments within Jos Metropolis, Nigeria. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2009;3(12):459–465.
- 24.Nkonge NA, Oloo AM, Kithinji J, Kithinji JM. Knowledge, attitude and practice of health care waste management and associated health risks in the two teaching and referral hospitals in Kenya. J Community Health. 2012;37(6):1172–1177. doi: 10.1007/s10900-012-9580-x. [DOI] [PubMed]