Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 May 14;16(5):e0251621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251621

Prevalence and associated factors of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study

Betelhiem Eneyew 1,#, Tadesse Sisay 1, Adinew Gizeyatu 1, Mistir Lingerew 1, Awoke Keleb 1, Asmamaw Malede 1, Ayechew Ademas 1, Mengesha Dagne 1, Mesfin Gebrehiwot 1, Yitayish Damtie 2, Tesfaye Birhane Tegegne 2, Elsabeth Addisu 2, Zinabu Fentaw 3, Birhanu Wagaye 4, Alelgne Feleke 1, Seada Hassen 1, Gete Berihun 1, Masresha Abebe 1, Leykun Berhanu 1, Tarikuwa Natnael 1, Mohammed Yenuss 1, Gebremariam Ketema 5, Kassahun Bogale 5, Tilaye Matebe Yayeh 6, Maru Selamsew 7, Alemwork Baye 8, Metadel Adane 1,*,#
Editor: Miguel A Fernández9
PMCID: PMC8121341  PMID: 33989364

Abstract

Background

Acute respiratory infections are rising in developing countries including Ethiopia. Lack of evidence for the prevalence and associated factors of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia is a challenge for the implementation of appropriate measures to control acute respiratory infection. Thus, this study was designed to address the gaps.

Methods

A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted among 84 door-to-door waste collectors and 84 street sweepers from March to May 2018. A simple random sampling technique was used to select study participants. Data were collected by trained data collectors using a pretested structured questionnaire and on-the-spot direct observation checklist. Data were analyzed using three different binary logistic regression models at 95% confidence interval (CI): the first model (Model I) was used to identify factors associated with acute respiratory infection among street sweepers, whereas the second model (Model II) was used to identify factors associated with acute respiratory infection among door-to-door waste collectors, and the third model (Model III) was used for pooled analysis to identify factors associated with acute respiratory infection among both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors. From each model multivariable logistic regression, variables with a p-value <0.05 were taken as factors significantly associated with acute respiratory infection.

Results

The overall prevalence of acute respiratory infection among studied population was 42.85% with 95% CI (35.1, 50.0%). The prevalence of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers was 48.80% (95% CI: 37.3, 64.8%) and among door-to-door waste collectors was 36.90% (95% CI: 27.4, 46.4%). There was no statistically significant difference between the prevalence of acute respiratory infection among the two groups due to the overlapping of the 95% CI. Among the street sweepers, we found that factors significantly associated with acute respiratory infection were not cleaning personal protective equipment after use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.15, 5.51) and use of coal/wood for cooking (AOR: 3.95; 95% CI: 1.52, 7.89), whereas among door-to-door waste collectors, were not using a nose/mouth mask while on duty (AOR: 5.57; 95% CI: 1.39, 9.32) and not receiving health and safety training (AOR: 3.82; 95% CI: 1.14–7.03) were factors significantly associated with acute respiratory infection among door-to-door-waste collectors. From the pooled analysis, we found that not using a nose/mouth mask while on duty (AOR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.16, 4.53) and using coal/wood for cooking (AOR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.18, 6.95) were factors significantly associated with acute respiratory infection for both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors.

Conclusion

The prevalence of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors has no statistically significant difference. For both groups, not using a nose/mouth mask while on duty and using coal/wood for cooking fuel factors associated with acute respiratory infection. The municipality should motivate and monitor workers use of personal protective equipment including masks and gloves. Workers should use a nose/mouth mask while on duty and should choose a clean energy source for cooking at home.

Background

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs), which are caused by viruses and bacteria that affect the upper and lower respiratory tract, are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, accounting for approximately 5.8 million deaths worldwide in 2010 [1]. Acute respiratory tract illnesses are the most frequent illnesses in humans and are an important cause of disability and days lost from school or work [2, 3].

Industrialized countries have significantly reduced occupational health impacts on street sweepers and waste collectors by applying standardized waste management processes including regular use of closed containers for waste collection [4]. In developing countries, waste that is put out for collection is rarely stored in closed containers. Rather, it is dumped in the open or left in an open carton or basket, requiring it to be picked up by hand. Therefore, workers in developing countries will have more direct contact with solid waste than their counterparts in developed countries [5].

Bioaerosols liberated from waste and compost may contain bacteria, spore forms of bacteria and fungi [6, 7]. Exposure to bioaerosols is associated with health effects such as respiratory symptoms and influenza-like symptoms [8]. Different studies have identified age, educational status, type of home cooking fuel used, prolonged duration of working hours and employment, past medical history, use of face mask as factors having an association with ARI and respiratory symptoms [916]. Many studies have been conducted on the prevalence of and associated factors for ARI, but the majority of the studies have been restricted to children [13, 1722] and so ARI data related to other age groups are limited.

In this study, the primary target population was door-to-door solid waste collectors, whose health is affected by manual sorting of waste before it is disposed of at solid waste disposal sites, and street sweepers, who inhale dust swept up by their manual brooms, which aggravates respiratory problems. The prevalence of and associated factors for ARI in street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors remain poorly understood. It is therefore vital in this study to identify the prevalence of ARI and associated factors among door-to-door waste collectors and street sweepers in Dessie City, Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study area, study design and participants

An institution-based comparative cross-sectional study was conducted during March to May 2018 in Dessie City. Dessie City is located 401 km northeast of the capital city of Addis Ababa on the high plateau in Amhara regional state, South Wollo zone.

The city sanitation, beautification and parks development department runs the solid waste management activities of the town. The solid waste management includes door-to-door waste collection and transport to the disposal site. There are 485 door-to-door waste collectors working under ten micro-enterprises and 100 street sweepers working under ten micro-enterprises recruited by the municipality to undertake this activity. Door-to-door solid waste collectors and street sweepers employed by Dessie City municipality were the source population from which the study population was systematically selected.

Sample size and sampling procedure

The sample size was determined using double proportion population formula

(Zα/2+Zβ)2*[P1(1P1)+P2(1P2)]/(P1P2)2

where:

  • ◾ Zα/2 is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 (for a confidence level of 95%, α is 0.05 and the critical value is 1.96)

  • ◾ Zβ is the critical value of the normal distribution at β (for a power of 80%, β is 0.2 and the critical value is 0.84).

  • ◾ P1 is the prevalence of respiratory symptoms among street sweepers 0.689 [10].

  • ◾ P2 is the prevalence of respiratory symptoms among door- to-door waste collectors 0.5 considering 50% prevalence.

n=(1.96+0.84)2*(0.69(10.69)+0.5(10.5))(0.690.5)2=75.6276

By considering 10% non-response rate, which is 8, then the sample size for each group was 84; finally; the overall total sample size of the study for the two groups was 168.

There were ten door-to-door waste collecting micro-and small-scale enterprises and ten street sweeping micro-and small-scale enterprises. For both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors, proportional allocation of sample size was employed among ten micro enterprises working on waste collection and then simple random sampling technique was used to select study participants. Finally, 168 participants were selected using simple random sampling technique (84 street sweepers and 84 door-to-door waste collectors) (Figs 1 and 2).

Fig 1. Proportional allocation of sample size among enterprises of door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Proportional allocation of sample size among enterprises of street sweepers in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Fig 2

Study variables

The dependent variable of this study was the presence or absence of acute respiratory infection (ARI), whereas the independent variables included socio-demographic factors, behavioral factors, housing condition, occupational and environmental factors, institutional factors, and history of past medical illness. Presence of ARI was defined by the study participant having suffered from any ARI symptoms: a cough, fever, sore throat, chest tightness, shortness of breath (wheezing or difficulty in breathing) in the preceding two weeks before the interview [14].

Data collection

Data were collected using face-to-face interviewer-administered questionnaire and an on-the-spot observation checklist for utilization of PPE and at home housing conditions. The questionnaire was first prepared in English, translated to Amharic and then re-translated back to English to keep consistency. The questionnaire consisted of 6 parts. Part I included questions about socio-demographic data, Part II about behavioral factors, Part III about occupational and environmental factors, Part IV about institutional factors, part V about past medical illness and Part VI about the presence of any ARI symptoms in the preceding two weeks.

Four data collectors and two supervisors, who had a BSc degree in environmental health were involved in the survey. They were given two days’ training about data collection tools, the procedures to take written informed consent and other ethical issues. A pretest was done outside of the selected area using a number of people equal to 10% of study participants. Then the questionnaire amendment was done for its consistency based on the findings of the pretest before the actual data collection commenced. The supervisors regularly monitored data collectors. The completeness and consistency of the questionnaires was checked daily during data collection.

Data analysis

Data were entered into EpiData version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 24.0 for data cleaning and analysis. During data analysis, mean and standard deviation (SD) (mean ±SD) were calculated for continuous variables, whereas descriptive statistics of frequencies (n) and percentage (%) were conducted for categorical variables. Using the outcome variable of presence of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors, we estimated the prevalence of ARI separately for each groups. To examine whether there was a significant difference or no difference in the prevalence ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door-waste collectors, we estimated the 95% CI of the prevalence of ARI for the two groups by bootstrap using SPSS version 24.0. When there was overlapping of the 95% CI, we concluded that there was no significant difference of prevalence of ARI between street sweepers and door-to-door-waste collectors, whereas if there was no overlapping of the 95% CI of the prevalence of ARI among the two groups, we concluded there was a significant difference of the prevalence of ARI between them.

Data were analyzed using three different binary logistic regression models at 95% CI: the first model (Model I) was used to identify factors associated with ARI among street sweepers, the second model (Model II) was used to identify factors associated with ARI among door-to-door waste collectors, and the third model (Model III) was used for pooled (combined) analysis to identify factors associated with ARI among both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors. For each model, bi-variable and multivariable analysis were estimated and variables with p < 0.25 in bi-variable logistic regression were transferred to each adjusted model for street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors, as well as to the pooled analysis. Finally, variables with p-value < 0.05 from Model I (street sweepers), Model II (door-to-door waste collectors) and Model III (pooled analysis) of the multivariable logistic regression were taken as factors significantly associated with ARI, respectively. Potential confounders for the three models were controlled by the adjusted analysis during multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Multi-collinearity test was carried out using standard error (SE) to see the correlation between independent variables. There was no multi-collinearity and values were 1.85, which is in the ranges of -2 < SE < 2. The Hosmer Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test [23] with p-value greater than 0.05 was used to check the fitness of the model; the p-value of each Model I, Model II and Model III was 0.931, 0.857 and 0.890, respectively.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from Ethical Review Committee of College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University. Before conducting the survey, a supportive letter from Wollo University’s Department of Environmental Health was written to the Dessie City Health Bureau and Dessie City municipality, which in turn secured permission to conduct the study. Informed written consent was obtained from the study participants after they were given information about the aim of the study. Study participants were assured that their information would not be used for purposes other than scientific research, that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the interview at any time for whatever reason. Study participants who had ARI symptoms at the time of data collection were linked to the nearest health facility for treatment. Data were gathered anonymously without recording the names and any other identifiers of the study participant to keep confidentiality of the study.

Result

Characteristics of street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors

Data were collected and analyzed from 84 street sweepers and 84 door-to-door waste collectors, with 100 percent response rate. The sex frequency distribution in street sweepers was male 11 (13.1%), female 73 (86.9%) and in door-to-door waste collectors was male 28 (33.3%), female 56 (66.7%). Study subjects’ age range was 20–61 years. Most (91.7%) of the street sweepers and three-fourths (76.2%) of door-to-door waste collectors had a monthly income less than 27 $ USD. Among street sweepers, 22 (26.2%) had completed primary school or above, whereas 47 (56.0%) of them could not read and write (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Variable Category ARI among street sweepers (N = 84) ARI door-to-door waste collectors (N = 84)
Yes No Yes No
(%) (%) (%) n (%)
Sex Male 3 (27.3) 8 (72.7) 11 (39.3) 17 (60.7)
Female 38 (52.1) 35 (47.9) 20 (35.7) 36 (64.3)
Age (years) 18–35 18 (52.9) 16 (47.1) 22 (36.7) 38 (63.3)
36–45 20 (57.1) 15 (42.9) 6 (31.6) 13 (68.4)
46–61 3(20.0) 12(80.0) 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0)
Marital status Single 7 (50.0) 7 (50.0) 10 (38.5) 16 (61.5)
Married 20 (60.6) 13 (39.4) 11 (32.4) 23 (67.6)
Separated 12 (42.9) 16 (57.1) 9 (45.0) 11 (55.0)
Widowed 2 (22.2) 7 (77.8) 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0)
Educational status Cannot read and write 18 (38.3) 29 (61.7) 18 (41.9) 25 (58.1)
Can read and write 6 (40.0) 9 (60.0) 5 (41.7) 7 (58.3)
Primary school or above 17 (77.3) 5(22.2) 8 (27.6) 21 (72.4)
Family size (persons) ≤2 4 (57.1) 3 (42.9) 9 (25.7) 26 (74.3)
3–4 23 (55.1) 28 (54.9) 17 (43.6) 22 (56.4)
≥ 5 14 (53.8) 12 (46.2) 5 (50.0) 5 (50.0)
Monthly income ($ USD)* ≤ $27 37 (48.1) 40 (51.9) 23 (35.9) 41 (64.1)
> $27 4 (57.1) 3 (42.9) 8 (40.0) 12 (60.0)

*$1 United States Dollars equal to 29 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) during March to May 2018.

Occupational and environmental factors

All study participants of both group worked 8 hours per day. Two street sweepers and 22 (26.2%) door-to-door waste collectors worked more than 48 hours per week. Among street sweepers who had worked for more than 5 years 25 (48.1%) had ARI. Of the 4 street sweepers who had past exposure to gas or chemical fumes, 2 had ARI. Only one door-to-door waste collector had past exposure to gas/chemical fumes and that participant had ARI. Of all study participants, 6 street sweepers and 8 door-to-door waste collectors had exposure to another dusty job. The number of participants with less than 5 years’ work experience among street sweepers was 32 (38.0%) and among door-to-door waste collectors 77 (91.7%).

Institutional factors

For neither category of study subjects was there a shower facility provided by the municipality. Of the study participants, masks that covered their mouths were worn by 67 (79.8%) street sweepers and 58 (69.0%) door-to-door waste collectors. The number of participants who had gloves was 67(79.8%) among street sweepers and 74 (88.1%) among door-to-door waste collectors (Fig 3). Data on the utilization of PPE while on duty at the time of data collection showed 50 (59.5%) street sweepers and 49 (58.3%) door-to-door waste collectors used a mask; and 55 (65.5%) street sweepers and 68 (81.0%) door-to-door waste collectors used gloves (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Availability of personal protective equipment among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Utilization of personal protective equipment among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Fig 4

Of all study participants who were given health and safety training, 55 (65.4%) street sweepers and 56 (66.7%) door-to-door waste collectors had been trained within the month previous to the time of data collection time; only 4 street sweepers and 4 door-to-door waste collectors had received pre-employment training. Of all study participants, 38 (45.2%) street sweepers and 58 (69.0%) door-to-door waste collectors did not clean their PPE after using them. Of those street sweepers who didn’t clean PPE after use, 22 (57.9%) had ARI and of the similar category of waste collectors, 25 (43.1%) had ARI (Table 2).

Table 2. Cleaning personal protective equipment (PPE), taking shower after work and training among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia March to May 2018.

Variable Category ARI among street sweepers (N = 84) ARI among door-to-door waste collectors (N = 84)
Yes No Yes No
(%) (%) (%) n (%)
Takes shower after work No 22 (51.2) 21 (48.8) 21 (35.7) 25 (54.3)
Yes 19 (36.3) 22 (53.7) 10 (36.3) 28 (73.7)
Cleans PPE after using it No 22 (57.9) 16 (42.1) 25 (43.1) 33 (56.9)
Yes 19 (41.3) 27 (58.7) 6 (23.1) 20 (76.9)
Health and safety training received No 12 (41.4) 17 (58.6) 12 (60.0) 8 (40.0)
Yes 29 (52.7) 26 (47.3) 19 (29.7) 45 (70.3)
Who gave training Health professionals 19 (48.9) 21 (52.5) 13 (24.5) 40 (75.5)
Our boss 10 (66.7) 5 (33.3) 6 (54.5) 5 (45.5)

Housing conditions

There were 6 door-to-door waste collectors who were homeless. There were only 3 street sweepers and 1 door-to-door waste collector whose houses were built of cement. Study participants who had a cigarette smoker in their house included 7 street sweepers and 5 door-to-door waste collectors. Only 8 street sweepers and 3 door-to-door waste collectors had a chicken or farm animal in their house. Study participants who used coal/wood for cooking and also had ARI included 35 (54.7%) street sweepers and 24 (37.5%) door-to-door waste collectors (Table 3).

Table 3. Housing conditions among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia March to May 2018.

Variable ARI among street sweepers (N = 84) ARI among door-to-door waste collectors (N = 84)
Yes No Yes No
(%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Fuel used at home 6 (37.5) 14(62.5) 4 (28.6) 10 (71.4)
35 (54.7) 29 (45.3) 24 (37.5) 40 (62.5)
Floor material 5 (50.0) 5 (50.0) 3 (42.8) 4 (57.1)
36 (48.6) 38 (51.4) 25 (35.1) 46 (64.8)
Kitchen location 34 (48.6) 36 (51.4) 25 (37.3) 42 (62.7)
7 (50.0) 7 (50.0) 3 (27.3) 8 (72.7)
Bedroom window 21 (53.8) 18 (46.2) 17 (37.8) 28 (62.2)
20 (54.4) 25 (55.6) 11 (33.7) 22 (66.7)
Pets (dog or cat) in house 31 (48.4) 33 (51.6) 7 (37.7) 43 (62.3)
10 (50.0) 10 (50.0) 2 (23.2) 26 (77.8)
Persons per room 11 (52.4) 10 (47.6) 9 (25.7) 26 (74.3)
30 (47.6) 33 (52.4) 19 (44.2) 24 (55.8)

Behavioral factors

All participant street sweepers had never smoked cigarettes while 5 door-to-door waste collectors had ever smoked cigarettes. Of those door-to-door waste collectors who smoked cigarettes, 3 had ARI. Among street sweepers, only 2 had always chewed chat and both of them had ARI. Among door-to-door waste collectors, 11 had always chewed chat, of whom 6 had ARI. Participants who had always drunk alcohol included 3 street sweepers and 7 door-to-door waste collectors.

Past respiratory diseases history

This study showed that, among street sweepers, reports of a history of respiratory disease included bronchitis (1 person), asthma (6 persons), and pulmonary TB (4 four persons) and 2 reports of history of heart attack; while similar reports among door-to-door waste collectors included emphysema (1 person), asthma (3 persons), pulmonary TB (2 persons), pneumonia (4 persons), sinus problems (1 person) and 3 reports of history of heart attack (Table 4).

Table 4. History of past respiratory disease among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, March to May 2018.

Past history of respiratory disease Street sweepers (N = 84) Door-to-door waste collectors (N = 84)
N n
Bronchitis 1 0
Asthma 6 3
Pulmonary TB 4 2
Heart attack 4 3
Emphysema 0 1
Pneumonia 0 4
Sinus problems 0 1

Prevalence and symptoms of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors

The prevalence of ARI among street sweepers was 48.8% with 95% CI (37.3, 64.8%) and among door-to-door waste collectors 36.9% with 95% CI (27.4, 46.4%). The overall prevalence of ARI among the studied population was 42.85% with 95% CI (35.1, 50.0%). The 95% CI prevalence of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors was overlapping, which indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in ARI between the two groups (Fig 5). The presence of fever was found in 28 (33.3%) among street sweepers and 16 (19.0%) door-door waste collectors. The prevalence of chest tightness among street sweepers was 15 (17.9%), twice as high as among door-to-door waste collectors 7 (8.3%). The prevalence of cough among street sweepers was 18 (21.4%) and among door-to-door waste collectors 16 (19.0%) (Table 5).

Fig 5. Prevalence of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Fig 5

Table 5. Symptoms of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie city, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

ARI symptoms* Street sweepers (N = 84) Door-to-door waste collectors (N = 84)
(%) n (%)
Runny nose 26 (31.0) 20 (23.8)
Cough 18 (21.4) 16 (19.0)
Fever 28 (33.3) 16 (19.0)
Sore throat 21 (25.0) 20 (23.8)
Chest tightness 15 (17.9) 7 (8.3)
Wheezing 16 (19) 4 (4.8)

*Study participants may have more than one symptom.

Factors associated with ARI among street sweepers

From the multivariable analysis of data about street sweepers only, we found that street sweepers who had not cleaned PPE after use were more likely to develop ARI (AOR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.15, 5.51) than those who cleaned PPE after use. Furthermore, we also found that those street sweepers who used coal/wood for cooking were more likely to develop ARI (AOR: 3.95; 95% CI: 1.52, 7.89) than who those who used electricity for cooking (Table 6).

Table 6. Factors associated with ARI among street sweepers from multivariable logistic regression analysis in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Variable Category Frequency Model I: Street sweepers
ARI
Yes No COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
(%) n n
Sex Female 73 (86.9) 38 35 2.90 (0.71, 11.79) 7.68 (0.48, 23.46)
Male 11 (13.1) 3 8 1 1
Age (years) 18–35 34 (40.5) 18 16 1 1
36–45 35 (41.7) 20 15 1.19 (0.46, 3.06) 3.14 (0.60, 16.40)
46–61 15 (17.8) 3 12 0.22 (0.05, 0.93) 0.11 (0.01, 2.01)
Educational status Cannot read and write 47 (56.0) 18 29 0.18 (0.06, 0.58) 0.16 (0.02, 1.09)
Can read and write 15 (17.8) 6 9 0.20 (0.05, 0.82) 0.64 (0.051, 7.57)
Primary school or above 22(26.2) 17 5 1 1
Takes shower after work No 43 (51.2) 22 21 1.21 (0.52, 2.86) 0.18 (0.02, 1.66)
Yes 41 (48.8) 19 22 1 1
Cleaning PPE after use No 38 (45.2) 22 16 1.95 (0.98, 4.67) 2.40 (1.15, 5.51)
Yes 46 (54.8) 19 27 1 1
Home used energy Coal(wood) 64 (76.2) 35 29 2.92 (1.96, 8.26) 3.95 (1.52, 7.98)
Electricity 16 (23.8) 6 10 1 1

1, reference category.

Factors associated with ARI among door-to-door waste collectors

From the multivariable analysis of using data about door-to-door waste collectors only, we found that door-to-door waste collectors who did not use a nose/mouth mask while on duty were more likely to have ARI (AOR: 5.57; 95% CI: 1.39, 9.32) than those who used a nose/mouth mask. Door-to-door waste collectors, who had not received training about health and safety were more likely to develop ARI (AOR: 3.82; 95% CI: 1.14–7.03) than those who had received training about health and safety (Table 7).

Table 7. Factors associated with ARI among door-to-door waste collectors from multivariable logistic regression analysis in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Variable Category Frequency Model I1: Door -to-door waste collectors
ARI COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes No
(%) n n
Family size (persons) ≤ 2 35 (41.7) 9 26 1 1
3–4 39 (46.4) 17 22 2.23 (0.83, 5.99) 2.08 (0.67, 6.46)
≥ 5 10 (11.9) 5 5 2.89 (0.68, 12.35) 4.50 (0.84, 24.07)
Has nose/mouth masks No 26 (31.0) 12 14 1.76 (0.68, 4.53) 0.32 (0.07, 1.43)
Yes 58 (69.0) 19 39 1 1
Uses nose/mouth mask No 35 (41.7) 20 15 4.61 (1.79, 11.89) 5.57 (1.39, 9.32)
Yes 49 (58.3) 11 38 1 1
Takes shower after work No 46 (54.8) 21 25 2.35 (0.93, 5.94) 1.67 (0.57, 4.92)
Yes 38 (45.2) 10 28 1 1
Cleans PPE after use No 58 (69.0) 25 33 2.53 (0.88, 7.22) 1.23 (0.36, 4.24)
Yes 26 (31.0) 6 20 1 1
Received health and safety training No 20 (23.8) 12 8 3.55 (1.25, 10.08) 3.82 (1.14, 7.03)
Yes 64 (76.2) 19 45 1 1

1, reference category.

Factors associated with ARI among both street sweepers and door-to door waste collectors from pooled multivariable analysis

From the pooled analysis of both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors, we found that not using a nose/mouth mask while on duty and using coal/wood for home cooking were statistically associated with ARI for both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors. Street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors who did not use a nose/mouth mask while on duty were more likely to have ARI (AOR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.16, 4.53) than those who used a nose/mouth mask. Those street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors who used coal/wood for cooking were more likely to have ARI (AOR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.18, 6.95) than those who used electricity for cooking (Table 8).

Table 8. Factors associated with ARI among both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors from pooled analysis of the multivariable logistic regression analysis in Dessie City, Ethiopia, March to May 2018.

Variable Category Model III: Pooled analysis (combined)
ARI COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes No
n
Occupation Street sweepers 41 (48.8) 43 (51.2) 1.63 (0.88, 3.02) 1.44 (0.59, 3.50)
Door-to-door waste collectors 31 (36.9) 53 (63.1) 1 1
Family size (persons) ≤ 2 13 (31.0) 29 (69.0) 1 1
3–4 40 (44.4) 50 (55.6) 1.79 (0.82, 3.88) 2.48 (0.66, 9.33)
≥ 5 19 (52.8) 17 (47.2) 2.49 (0.99, 6.29) 3.74 (0.84, 16.70)
Working hour per week > 48 7 (29.2) 17 (70.8) 0.50 (0.20, 1.28) 0.46 (0.15, 1.42)
≤ 48 65 (45.1) 79 (54.9) 1 1
Duration of occupation (years) ≤ 5 43 (39.4) 66 (60.6) 1 1
> 5 29 (49.2) 30 (50.8) 1.48 (0.78, 2.81) 1.10 (0.47, 2.55)
Uses nose/mouth mask No 38 (55.1) 31 (44.9) 2.34 (1.25, 4.40) 2.19 (1.16, 4.53)
Yes 34 (34.3) 65 (65.9) 1 1
Takes shower after work No 43 (48.9) 45 (51.1) 1.68 (0.91, 3.12) 1.13 (0.52, 2.47)
Yes 29 (36.3) 51 (63.8) 1 1
Cleans PPE after use No 47 (49.0) 49 (51.0) 1.80 (0.96, 3.38) 1.81 (0.82, 3.99)
Yes 25 (34.7) 47 (65.3) 1 1
Chews chat Yes 8 (61.5) 5 (38.5) 2.28 (0.71, 7.27) 1.70 (0.36, 7.96)
No 64 (41.3) 91(58.7) 1 1
Type of fuel used at home Coal (wood) 59 (46.1) 69 (53.9) 2.05 (1.41, 4.64) 2.74 (1.18, 6.95)
Electricity 10 (29.4) 24 (70.6) 1 1
Ratio of number of persons per room 1–2.4 20 (35.7) 36 (64.3) 1 1
≥2.5 49 (46.2) 57 (53.8) 1.55 (0.79, 3.04) 0.67 (0.23, 2.01)

1, reference category.

Discussion

We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors to examine the prevalence of ARI and associated factors. Our findings showed that the prevalence of ARI among street sweepers was 48.80% and among door-to-door waste collectors 36.90%. Our findings also indicated that there was no statistically significant difference of the prevalence of ARI between the two groups. From the pooled analysis, we found that not using a nose/mouth mask while on duty and using coal/wood for cooking were factors significantly associated with ARI for both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors.

The overall prevalence of ARI in this study was 42.9 percent. The prevalence of ARI is higher in children than adults [12], however the result of this study was in line with a related study conducted in school-aged children in Sohag and Qena governorates, Upper Egypt, which was 44.86% [14] and even higher than the prevalence of ARI in children under five years of age in rural and urban areas of Kancheepuram district, south India, which was 27.0% [13]. This indicates that those groups are highly vulnerable to ARI. A study conducted in Addis Ababa found the prevalence of street sweepers with respiratory symptoms was 68.9% [10], which is higher than our study. This may be due to socio-demographic factor differences and the fact that that study was on respiratory symptoms and not specifically on ARI.

The prevalence of ARI among street sweepers and among door-to-door waste collectors was not statistically different. This might be due to the fact that both study groups were employed by the same institutions therefore their training, provision of PPE number of working days and their salary fairly similar. In addition to this, both groups were exposed to similar types of waste since people dispose of waste on the road-side. Educational status and housing conditions of both groups were similar. Furthermore, a lack of statistically significant differences in prevalence of ARI among the two groups might be due to similarity in study settings, environmental factors, the basic infrastructure of waste collectors, and similar characteristics of socio-demographic factors.

From the multivariable logistic regression analysis, we found that study participants who used coal/wood for cooking and who never used a facemask on duty were more likely to have ARI among both street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors. This result is consistent with a previous study done in Ethiopia on respiratory symptoms among solid waste collectors, which indicated that those who did not use a facemask while on duty were more likely to have ARI [5, 24]. This might be because the nose/mouth mask prevented the entrance of pathogens and dust into the respiratory tract. Similar findings were found in a study conducted on prevalence of ARI among school-aged children in Egypt, in which children who lived in a house with the presence of a source of smoke were more likely to have ARI than children who lived in a house without any source of smoke [14].

A study conducted among young children in developing countries found, a significant increase in risk of ARI among those exposed to smoke or smokey fuels at home compared those in households that used cleaner fuels or were otherwise less exposed [20]. Other studies also found that use of biofuel for cooking is a risk factor associated with ARI [13, 15, 16, 22]. Cooking in the living room imposes a high level of indoor air pollution and suffocation that could increase the incidence ARI. Therefore, cooking in a separate kitchen appears to be important for preventing of ARI. Our findings are also supported by studies in Este Town in northwestern Ethiopia [17], Wolayta-Sodo in southern Ethiopia [25], and northeast Brazil [26] despite these studies being conducted among under-five children about pneumonia. The use of traditional cooking fuels also may increase indoor air pollution, which may increases the incidence of ARI. A study among under-five children about pneumonia in peri-urban areas of Dessie city also found that domestic fuel as the energy source for cooking was a factor associated with pneumonia [27]. Although the two studies’ findings are exactly comparable, they showed a common factor with our study in Dessie.

Limitations of the study and gaps for further research

That this study could not find the cause-and-effect relationship between the factors and ARI was considered s one of its limitations. Another limitation was that study was based on symptoms that were not based on clinical diagnosis by a physician but were reported by the study participants recall of the two weeks before the interview, which might have underestimated or overestimated the prevalence of ARI. Our study may over-report some variables due to social desirability bias during self-reporting. For instance, participants’ recall bias might have influenced the result history of past medical illness. Further studies are recommended that consider avoiding these limitations through a follow-up study in order to obtain more valid findings.

Longitudinal studies covering different seasons may provide a better understanding of the occurrence of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, which will help to design programs to prevent ARI. Further studies are essential to confirm ARI by clinical examination. A more detailed study that examines several occupation related diseases using clinical examination is urgently needed in order to identify all types of disease that may be caused as result of their solid waste collection work. Such type of study is helpful for proper intervention purposes. We used some studies about children for discussion since there is a lack of studies among adult populations, which would provide more comparable details and a stronger discussion. Therefore, we notice that several studies should be conducted with the goal of preventing ARI among adults.

Implication of the study to practice/policy

Urban sanitation is a concern for the government in Ethiopia in order to maintain and improve the health of urban residents and to attract visitors to urban areas. This is part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 regarding clean water and sanitation for all, to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, and Goal 11 about sustainable cities and communities, to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. To this end, solid waste collectors employed by urban municipality played an immense role in realizing proper urban sanitation through proper solid waste management, which in turn makes a city beautiful and attractive. As part of achieving these types of goals, the health and safety of solid waste collectors (street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors) must be considered, including b not experiencing disease due to their work.

Availability of PPE, not using wood/coal as source of home energy, a good working environment, optimum work load, sufficient payment and healthy living/housing conditions might play an immense role in making waste collectors healthy and happy in their work. Our study will provide an input for health mangers, municipalities, and policy makers to prioritize areas to be improved in order to prevent ARI among urban municipality waste collectors. Furthermore, considering the prevalence of ARI among street sweepers and doo-to-door waste collectors, the Dessie City municipality in collaboration with governmental and non-governmental organizations, could further scale up programs that will help waste collectors themselves in trying to prevent ARI and other occupation related disease in a sustainable manner.

Conclusions

The study revealed that the overall prevalence of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors was 42.85%. The identified significant factors for ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors were not using a nose/mouth mask while on duty and using coal and wood for household cooking. We recommend that the municipality regularly provide these workers with adequate and quality PPE and motivate and monitor the workers use of PPE while they are on duty. We also recommend that street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors use nose/mouth masks while on duty and use a clean energy source such as electricity, biogas and solar energy for cooking at home.

Supporting information

S1 Questionnaire. English version of the questionnaire.

Survey of prevalence and associated factors of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia.

(DOCX)

S2 Questionnaire. Amharic (local language) version of the questionnaire.

Survey of prevalence and associated factors of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledged Dessie City Health Bureau for providing information and support during the study. Our deepest gratitude goes to Dessie City Municipality Sanitation, Beautification and Park Department for their support during the study by providing the necessary information while we needed. Our heartfelt thanks also go to data collectors, supervisors and the study participant door-to-door waste collectors and street sweepers for their cooperation during data collection. Last but not the least, Lisa Penttila is also duly acknowledged for the language editing of this paper.

List of abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

ARI

Acute Respiratory Infection

CI

Confidence Interval

COR

Crude Odds Ratio

PPE

Personal Protective Equipment

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Wollo University funded this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2095–128. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61728-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Denny FW Jr. The clinical impact of human respiratory virus infections. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(4):S4. 10.1164/ajrccm/152.4_Pt_2.S4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Monto AS. Occurrence of respiratory virus: time, place and person. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004;23(1):S58–S64. 10.1097/01.inf.0000108193.91607.34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dall’Agnol CM, Fernandes FdS. Health and self-care among garbage collectors: Work experiences in a recyclable garbage cooperative. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2007;15(SPE):729–35. 10.1590/s0104-11692007000700003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cointreau S. Occupational and environmental health issues of solid waste management: Special emphasis on middle-and lower-income countries. Urban Papers. 2006;2. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Heldal K, Eduard W, Bergum M. Bioaerosol exposure during handling of source separated household waste. Ann Agric Environ Med. 1997;4:45–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nielsen EM, Nielsen BH, Breum NO. Occupational bioaerosol exposure during collection of household waste. Ann Agric Environ Med. 1995;2:53–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wouters I, Hilhorst S, Kleppe P, Doekes G, Douwes J, Peretz C, et al. Upper airway inflammation and respiratory symptoms in domestic waste collectors. Occup Environ Med. 2002;59(2):106–12. 10.1136/oem.59.2.106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Abou-ElWafa HS, El-Bestar SF, El-Gilany A-H, Awad El-Toraby EE-S. Respiratory disorders among municipal solid waste collectors in Mansoura, Egypt: A comparative study. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014;69(2):100–6. 10.1080/19338244.2012.744737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Abraha MT. Occupational Respiratory Health Symptoms and Associated Factors among Street Sweepers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. MPH Thesis, School of Public Health, Africa Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia J Public Health Dev Ctries. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bogale D, Tefera W. Assessment of occupational injuries among Addis Ababa city municipal solid waste collectors: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(169). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chen Y, Williams E, Kirk M. Risk factors for acute respiratory infection in the Australian community. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e101440. 10.1371/journal.pone.0101440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sharma D, Kuppusamy K, Bhoorasamy A. Prevalence of acute respiratory infections (ARI) and their determinants in under five children in urban and rural areas of Kancheepuram district, South India. Ann Trop Med PH. 2013;6(5):513–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yousef FM, Hamed AF. Prevalence of acute respiratory infection and related risk factors in school-age children in Egypt: A cross-sectional study. Int J Curr Res Med Sci. 2016;2(7):50–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Taksande AM, Yeole M. Risk factors of acute respiratory infection (ARI) in under-fives in a rural hospital of Central India. J Pediatric Neonatal Individ Medicine. 2016;5(1):e050105–e. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ujunwa F, Ezeonu C. Risk factors for acute respiratory tract infections in under‑five children in enugu Southeast Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4(1):95–9. 10.4103/2141-9248.126610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fekadu GA, Terefe MW, Alemie GA. Prevalence of pneumonia among under-five children in Este Town and the surrounding rural Kebeles, Northwest Ethiopia: A community based cross sectional study. Sci J Public Heal. 2014;2(3):150–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Goel K, Ahmad S, Agarwal G, Goel P. A cross sectional study on prevalence of acute respiratory infections (ARI) in under-five children of Meerut District. India J Community Med Health Educ. 2012;2(176):2161–0711.1000176. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kumar SG, Majumdar A, Kumar V, Naik BN, Selvaraj K, Balajee K. Prevalence of acute respiratory infection among under-five children in urban and rural areas of puducherry, India. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2015;6(1):3. 10.4103/0976-9668.149069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Smith KR, Samet JM, Romieu I, Bruce N. Indoor air pollution in developing countries and acute lower respiratory infections in children. Thorax. 2000;55(6):518–32. 10.1136/thorax.55.6.518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Suguna E, Kumar SG, Roy G. Prevalence and risk factors of acute respiratory infection among school children in coastal South India. J Glob Infect Dis. 2014;6(3):95–8. 10.4103/0974-777X.138498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.DN S, K M, H C, A H, M J, J K, et al. The prevalence of acute respiratory infections and the associated risk factors: A study of children under five years of age in Kibera Lindi village, Nairobi, Kenya. J Natl Inst Public Health. 2002;51(1):67–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hosmer J, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant R. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Emiru Z, Gezu M, Chichiabellu TY, Dessalegn L, Anjulo AA. Assessment of respiratory symptoms and associated factors among solid waste collectors in Yeka Sub City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Public Health Epidemiol. 2017;9(6):189–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Admasie A, Kumie A, Worku A. Children under five from houses of unclean fuel sources and poorly ventilated houses have higher odds of suffering from acute respiratory infection in Wolaita-Sodo, Southern Ethiopia: A case-control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;2018. 10.1155/2018/9320603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fonseca W, Kirkwood BR, Misago C. Factors related to child care increase the risk of pneumonia among children living in a poor community in northeast Brazil. J Trop Med. 1997;43(2):123–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Keleb A, Sisay T, Alemu K, Ademas A, Lingerew M, Kloos H, et al. Pneumonia remains a leading public health problem among under-five children in peri-urban areas of north-eastern Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(9):e0235818. 10.1371/journal.pone.0235818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Miguel A Fernández

7 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05977

Proportion and Associated Factors of Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) Among Street Sweepers and Door-to-Door Waste Collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Adane (PhD),

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The paper looks interesting to me. However, the reviewers raise a number of issues that you should take into account for the paper to be acceptable for PLoS ONE. Apart from that, please check Table 4 as it looks to me that some information in the left column for variables is missing. I think also that a new table collecting the variables under consideration in the study and their definition is needed in the "Data collection and mesaurements" section. The definitions appearing in lines 139-142 in that section are completely disconnected with the rest of that section. In my opinion, you some further work is needed on that section.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 21 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miguel Alejandro Fernández, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.”

3. Please address the following:

a) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please provide further details of how this questionnaire was developed, for example by citing previous literature.

b) Please ensure you have discussed the potential impact of confounding variables

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: the paper is well written except some editorial mistakes. The figures included in the abstract section should be in line with the figures in the results section. For example the proportion of ARI among street sweepers (42.9% vs 48.8%). Another editorial issue is on the sample size calculation formula. In the equation za and zB should be squared.

Reviewer #2: Dear PLOS One thank you for the chance given to review a research article titled "Proportion and Associated Factors of Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) Among Street Sweepers and Door-to-Door Waste Collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study". acute respiratory diseases are the commonest causes of morbidity and mortality in street sweepers and in the door-to door waste collectors due to occupational exposure to different wastes. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the potential drivers of acute respiratory infection among exposed occupational risk groups. The following are my comments:

On the abstract Section:

-Sampling technique is missed

-line no 40: The overall proportion of ARI was high and no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups despite ARI being slightly higher in street sweepers. what is your standard to say is it high or low? and it is better to replace proportion with prevalence. How could you check difference b/n two groups was significant or not and it is not your scope.

- In keywords include associated factors

Introduction

The flow lacks coherence and scanty. Global, regional and national data on the matter of interest were missed?

On the Methods Section

-You did not determine sample size for the second objective?

-why you employed systematic sampling? It is unlikely for your study.

-Where did you get and/ how did you develop data collection tools your study? it is also not clear how could you measure validity and reliability of questionnaire?

-line 118-119 what is your data collection tool? is it interviewer administered questionnaire / observation checklist or both. make it explicit?

-what is your dependent variable and independent variables of the study?

Result section

-Present some of your findings eg mean/median age of participants and proportion of educational status, monthly income... and it is better to present the frequency of significant variables.

- line 167-169: The sex frequency distribution in street sweepers was male 11 (13.1%), female 73 (86.9%) and in door-to-door waste collectors was male 28 (33.3%), female 56 (66.7%). what does it mean? it lacks clarity.

- line 169: Study subjects age range was 20–61years but you did not specify the final age range in table 1 simply put as >45.

- what do that it mean when an individual is ever chewer and ever drinker ?

Discussion section

-Avoid presenting frequencies. ex: Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that ARI was three times more likely among individuals who did not use a facemask on the job.

- 240-41: The proportion of ARI among street sweepers and among door-to-door waste collectors was similar. what does it mean? do you have data but in the result part you presented them unlikely.

-The arguments are lack of scientific reasoning and reference?

- Implications were missed and what is the strength of your study?

On the Conclusion

-The study revealed that the overall proportion of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors is high. what is your standard to say high/low? you should ope-rationalize it.

-The difference in the proportion of ARI among street sweepers compared to door-to-door waste collectors was not statistically significant where do you get it? do you have data? but you did not present it in the result section and it is not your scope.

-Being a street sweeper or a door-to-door waste collector was not significantly associated with ARI. where do you got it?

- you are recommend that the municipality regularly provides these workers with adequate and quality PPEs, motivates and monitors the workers to use their PPEs while they are on duty an provides pre-employment safety training. are these significant finding affecting ARI? .

-you also recommended that these workers use a clean energy source like biogas and solar energy for cooking. what does it mean? are you considered biogas and solar energy as factors affecting ARI? In general, you should recommend according to your finding and practicality or applicability of result not from ground science.

-you did not incorporate declarations in your manuscript as well.

Reviewer #3: You raised an important issue which is a common problem of developing countries including Ethiopia. Overall, the document is well written but there are grammatical and writing errors which has to be corrected in addition to the following specific comments and questions.

Title

• Your title is too long. Make it short. Avoid “A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study” from the title. It is not as such strong study design. It may not attract readers to go through the whole paper.

Abstract

• Remove abbreviations like ARI, CI and so on from abstract.

• Methods:

The sampling technique is not mentioned.

Instead of using the term bi-variate, use the term bi-variable. They are different concepts.

• Results:

No need of writing 95% CI for associated factors in abstract section. Mentioning which variables were significant is enough.

How the overall proportion of ARI could be the same (42.9%) with the proportion of ARI among street sweepers while there is difference in proportion of ARI among street sweepers (42.9%) and door to door waste collectors (36.9%)?

• Conclusion:

Don’t use at higher risk of ARI since your study design doesn’t allow you to measure risk.

Background:

• Use terminologies uniformly like proportion and associated factors throughout the paper. Don’t mix up with prevalence and risk factors.

Materials and Methods:

• Sample size and sampling procedure:

The assumption for allocating the sample size for each micro enterprise in both groups is not clear. Why you include all?

• Data collection and measurements:

Change risk factors by associated factors

• Ethics approval and consent to participate:

How did you maintain confidentiality? specify it.

Results:

Grammatical and write up errors should be corrected.

• Characteristics of participants:

Instead of characteristics of participants, make it characteristics of street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors.

• Proportion of ARI and ARI Symptoms:

“The proportion of ARI among street sweepers was 48.8 percent with 95% CI (37.3, 64.8) and among door-to-door waste collectors 36.9% with 95% CI (27.4, 46.4). The overall proportion of ARI among studied population was 42.9% with 95% CI (35.1, 50.0)”. This is different from what you write in the abstract section. Correct your writing error.

• Factors Associated with ARI:

Factors for two groups are not clearly indicated. You should clearly mention which factors were significant among street sweepers and door to door waste collectors. That is expected from your study.

Discussion:

• The comparison of the proportion of ARI made is not appropriate; children are compared with adults.

Conclusions:

• You concluded that the overall proportion of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors is high. As you mentioned, the only comparable study done at Addis Ababa showed that the proportion of street sweepers with respiratory symptoms was 68.9%. So, how did you say that?

Table 1: Change inappropriate wording like illiterate

Table 2: Properly write the title by mentioning street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors

Reviewer #4: 1. From the abstract do not use abrevations

2. Sample size is too small in amount,How did you conclud?

3. Your disccusion is superficial

4. Minimize Page Numbers

5.it has hramatical error,please check it

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Erkihun Tadesse Amsalu

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 May 14;16(5):e0251621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251621.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Mar 2021

Date: March 02, 2021

Manuscript title: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Acute Respiratory Infection among Street Sweepers and Door-to-Door Waste Collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia

Manuscript ID. No: PONE-D-20-05977

Corresponding author: Metadel Adane (PhD) et al.

Dear Miguel Alejandro Fernández, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Thank you for your letter dated May 7, 2020 with a decision of revision needed. We were pleased to know that our manuscript was considered potentially acceptable for publication in PLoS ONE, subject to adequate revision as requested by the reviewers. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the rebuttal letter and the marked up copy of the revised manuscript highlighting the changes made in the original submitted version.

We have revised the manuscript by modifying the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other sections, based on the comments made by the reviewers and using the journal guidelines. Accordingly, we have marked in red color all the changes made during the revision process. Appended to this letter underneath is our point-by-point response (rebuttal letter) to the comments made by the reviewers.

We agree with almost all the comments/questions raised by the reviewers and provided justification for disagreeing with some of them. We would like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments and to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revision of the manuscript.

I hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in PLoS ONE.

Sincerely yours,

Metadel Adane (PhD in Water and Public Health)

Journal Requirements

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We thank you for your key comments and we revised the manuscript accordingly POLS ONE manuscript preparation templates including file naming (Please see the revised version).

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.”

Response: Written consent was obtained from the study participant and please see the updated ethical statement in page 9 and 10 form lines 199 to 200.

3. Please address the following:

a) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please provide further details of how this questionnaire was developed, for example by citing previous literature.

Response: We provided the survey tool or questionnaire as supportive information in both English and Amharic (original language) version labeled as S1 and S2, respectively (Please see on the revised version).

4. Please ensure you have discussed the potential impact of confounding variables

Response: We controlled the confounding variables during the multivariable analysis and we elaborated this in the data analysis section in page 8 to 9 from lines 187 to 188.

4. Financial disclosure:

Wollo University funded this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Line by line response to reviewers

Reviewer #1:

the paper is well written except some editorial mistakes. The figures included in the abstract section should be in line with the figures in the results section. For example the proportion of ARI among street sweepers (42.9% vs 48.8%). Another editorial issue is on the sample size calculation formula. In the equation za and zB should be squared.

Response: We appreciate you scientific judgment and thank you for your positive reflection of our study. Your concerns are valid and addressed accordingly. Please see the updated version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Dear PLOS One thank you for the chance given to review a research article titled "Proportion and Associated Factors of Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) Among Street Sweepers and Door-to-Door Waste Collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study". Acute respiratory diseases are the commonest causes of morbidity and mortality in street sweepers and in the door-to door waste collectors due to occupational exposure to different wastes. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the potential drivers of acute respiratory infection among exposed occupational risk groups. The following are my comments.

Response: Many thanks for your positive reflection of our study. Your concerns are valid and addressed accordingly.

On the abstract Section:

-Sampling technique is missed

Response: The sampling technique is included and please see page 8 in lines 132 to 133.

-line no 40: The overall proportion of ARI was high and no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups despite ARI being slightly higher in street sweepers. what is your standard to say is it high or low? and it is better to replace proportion with prevalence. How could you check difference b/n two groups was significant or not and it is not your scope.

Response: Thank you again for these key comments. We deleted those confusing terms of saying high and low. However, replaced proportion by prevalence. To examine either there was a significant difference or no difference of the prevalence ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door-waste collectors, we estimated the 95% CI of the prevalence of ARI for the two groups using SPSS version 24.0. When there was overlapping of the 95% CI, we concluded that there was no significant difference of prevalence of ARI between street sweepers and door-to-door-waste collectors, whereas if there was no overlapping of the 95% CI of the prevalence of ARI among the two groups, there was a significant difference of the prevalence of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door-waste collectors.

- In keywords include associated factors

Response: It is included but in PLoS ONE during publication, keywords are not necessary.

Introduction

The flow lacks coherence and scanty. Global, regional and national data on the matter of interest were missed?

Response: We accept the comment. However, most studies of ARI studies were common among children and our studies are among adults aged 18 years and above, which makes as unable to explore sufficient literature. Eleven some of our discussion are used studies among under five children, which is one of the limitation of this study. In any case, we tried our best to provide good introduction besides these challenges to develop a well-organized introduction (See the revised version of the introduction).

On the Methods Section

-You did not determine sample size for the second objective?

Response: Your idea is good and reasonable. Thank you. We were already determined sample size for the second specific objective during determining the time of proposal development, but we found that sample size based on the first specific objective was higher and we took that. But it is not common to show sample size calculation each objective during publication.

-why you employed systematic sampling? It is unlikely for your study.

Response: We did not used systematic sampling and sorry if it is written within the manuscript. We sued simple random sampling in our study (Please see the revised version of the manuscript).

-Where did you get and/ how did you develop data collection tools your study? it is also not clear how could you measure validity and reliability of questionnaire?

-line 118-119 what is your data collection tool? is it interviewer administered questionnaire / observation checklist or both. make it explicit?

Response: We collected data using both interviewer administered questionnaire / observation checklist and we updated the manuscript (see in page 7 from lines 146 to 150.

-what is your dependent variable and independent variables of the study?

Response: The dependent variable was the presence or absence of ARI, whereas the independent variables included socio-demographic factors, behavioral factors, housing condition, occupational and environmental factors, institutional factors, and history of past medical illness. These points were already mentioned at the study variables sub-sections within the methods during the original submission, still you can find it in the manuscript.

Result section

-Present some of your findings e.g mean/median age of participants and proportion of educational status, monthly income... and it is better to present the frequency of significant variables.

Response: We updated the descriptive result section as suggested and please see the revised version in page 10 from lines 213 to 217.

- line 167-169: The sex frequency distribution in street sweepers was male 11 (13.1%), female 73 (86.9%) and in door-to-door waste collectors was male 28 (33.3%), female 56 (66.7%). what does it mean? it lacks clarity.

Response: This is because of the study was a comparative study among the two groups and the sex frequency distribution was not similar. The percentage was also calculated for each group of the total 84 study participants. This is the nature of data and we could not do about the percentage of the frequency.

- line 169: Study subjects age range was 20–61years but you did not specify the final age range in table 1 simply put as >45.

Response: Thank you for detecting such errors and we updated the manuscript by fixing the range.

- what do that it mean when an individual is ever chewer and ever drinker ?

Response: It means that is always chewer and always drinker. We deleted ever and replaced with always. Thank you.

Discussion section

-Avoid presenting frequencies. ex: Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that ARI was three times more likely among individuals who did not use a facemask on the job.

Response: Thank you, we updated as suggested and we accepted your comment, which will minimize repetitions.

- 240-41: The proportion of ARI among street sweepers and among door-to-door waste collectors was similar. what does it mean? do you have data but in the result part you presented them unlikely.

Response: Many thanks for this pertinent comment. We mean that the prevalence of ARI among the two groups were not statistically different due to the overlapping of the 95% CI of the prevalence.

-The arguments are lack of scientific reasoning and reference?

Response: We tried to make the discussion more strong by adding several references. Thank you.

- Implications were missed and what is the strength of your study?

Response: Yes, this is very key comment. Our study was a comparative cross-sectional, which was not as such a strong study design; however, implication of the study was further expanded as you can see in page 17 and 18.

On the Conclusion

-The study revealed that the overall proportion of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors is high. what is your standard to say high/low? you should ope-rationalize it.

Response: Sure, it sounds the way our conclusion written is confusing. We updated the conclusion please see the updated version. See in page 18. Many thanks.

-The difference in the proportion of ARI among street sweepers compared to door-to-door waste collectors was not statistically significant where do you get it? do you have data? but you did not present it in the result section and it is not your scope.

Response: We provided the result section within the result and please see the updated version of the manuscript. Yes, we have the data and it is our main findings since during comparative study, testing the difference or no difference of the prevalence is a must task to be done (See in page 13 from lines 269 to 277).

-Being a street sweeper or a door-to-door waste collector was not significantly associated with ARI. where do you got it?

Response: We deleted that information and thank you for finding out such errors.

- you are recommend that the municipality regularly provides these workers with adequate and quality PPEs, motivates and monitors the workers to use their PPEs while they are on duty an provides pre-employment safety training. are these significant finding affecting ARI? .

Response: It is our result section in Model I, Model II or pooled analysis of Model III. That is way we recommended as a solution. However, we adjust the conclusion based on the pooled analysis and the significant factors were not sue of mask and use of wood/coal and please see the revised version of the conclusion (See the updated version 8 and 9).

-you also recommended that these workers use a clean energy source like biogas and solar energy for cooking. what does it mean? are you considered biogas and solar energy as factors affecting ARI? In general, you should recommend according to your finding and practicality or applicability of result not from ground science.

Response: In our study, use of wood/coal was associated with ARI and that is why we recommended not to use wood/coal rather than use a clean energy source like biogas and solar energy for cooking, which is valid recommendation. We agree that our recommendation should be based on the findings.

-you did not incorporate declarations in your manuscript as well.

Response: For PLoS ONE declaration is written online submission not within the manuscript.

Reviewer #3

You raised an important issue which is a common problem of developing countries including Ethiopia. Overall, the document is well written but there are grammatical and writing errors which has to be corrected in addition to the following specific comments and questions.

Response: Thank you very much for duly acknowledging our work and we accepted all of your concerns and addressed them carefully herein.

Title

• Your title is too long. Make it short. Avoid “A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study” from the title. It is not as such strong study design. It may not attract readers to go through the whole paper.

Response: Thank you and we deleted the design from the title to make it short.

Abstract

• Remove abbreviations like ARI, CI and so on from abstract.

Response: We used the full name of acute respiratory infection than ARI in the abstract. However, since CI and AOR used several times, and not making the readers more boring with the text we used the abbreviations after once used both the full name and the abbreviation. CI and AOR are most commonly used the abbreviation form in the abstract. If we sued the full name of CI and AOR, the size of the abstract word will increase.

• Methods:

The sampling technique is not mentioned.

Response: Thank you for this key comment. We briefly stated the sampling technique and please see the updated version and Figs, 1, 2 and 3 for further information.

Instead of using the term bi-variate, use the term bi-variable. They are different concepts.

Response: We changed as suggested and please see the updated version. Thank you.

• Results:

No need of writing 95% CI for associated factors in abstract section. Mentioning which variables were significant is enough.

Response: If we write in such a way as you suggested, it will become similar with the texts of the conclusion section. We prefer putting the main findings of the multivariable analysis is good for readers. However, we accept you comment and for clarity purpose, we prefer to put the 95 % CI for AOR and others.

How the overall proportion of ARI could be the same (42.9%) with the proportion of ARI among street sweepers while there is difference in proportion of ARI among street sweepers (42.9%) and door to door waste collectors (36.9%)?

Response: Sorry for the error, we found that we were wrong in putting the exact prevalence rate. The overall prevalence means the average of the prevalence among the two groups. (See the abstract)

• Conclusion:

Don’t use at higher risk of ARI since your study design doesn’t allow you to measure risk.

Response: We appreciate your feedback and w deleted using risk throughout the paper.

Background:

• Use terminologies uniformly like proportion and associated factors throughout the paper. Don’t mix up with prevalence and risk factors.

Response: Thank you, we revised to be consistent with rather than mixing up.

Materials and Methods:

• Sample size and sampling procedure:

The assumption for allocating the sample size for each micro enterprise in both groups is not clear. Why you include all?

Response: Since the number of micro enterprise are small, about 10, then we considered all since the total source population 750 working in 10 enterprises. That is way we included all.

• Data collection and measurements:

Change risk factors by associated factors

Response: We changed.

• Ethics approval and consent to participate:

How did you maintain confidentiality? specify it.

Response: We keep confidentially by did not recording names and other identifiers of the study participant (See the revised version of the ethics statement in page 8 and 9 from lines 199 to 206).

Results:

Grammatical and write up errors should be corrected.

Response: we tried our best to avoid any grammatical and write up errors.

• Characteristics of participants:

Instead of characteristics of participants, make it characteristics of street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors.

Response: Thank you, we made it as suggested (See the result section)

• Proportion of ARI and ARI Symptoms:

“The proportion of ARI among street sweepers was 48.8 percent with 95% CI (37.3, 64.8) and among door-to-door waste collectors 36.9% with 95% CI (27.4, 46.4). The overall proportion of ARI among studied population was 42.9% with 95% CI (35.1, 50.0)”. This is different from what you write in the abstract section. Correct your writing error.

Response: Thank you for detecting such mistake and we did the revision accordingly for making the abstract in line with the body of the paper.

• Factors Associated with ARI:

Factors for two groups are not clearly indicated. You should clearly mention which factors were significant among street sweepers and door to door waste collectors. That is expected from your study.

Response: Yes, this is very nice comment indeed. In the result section we found factors associated with ARI among street sweepers alone, among door-to-door waste collectors along and for both street sweepers and door-to-door collectors. Please see the result section in page --- and Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Discussion:

• The comparison of the proportion of ARI made is not appropriate; children are compared with adults.

Response: Yes, we did this purposely due to the fact that ARI is most common in children than adults, where we faced lack of studies among adults. We tried to minimize such issues despite we are unable to make discussion due to lack of studies among adults regarding ARI. We noted this in the limitation section and please see the limitations of the updated version in page 13 to 14.

Conclusions:

• You concluded that the overall proportion of ARI among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors is high. As you mentioned, the only comparable study done at Addis Ababa showed that the proportion of street sweepers with respiratory symptoms was 68.9%. So, how did you say that?

Response: Thank you for this key comment. We updated the conclusion by avoiding such confusion of high (See the conclusion in page 18 from lines 397 to 404).

Table 1: Change inappropriate wording like illiterate

Response: We changed illiterate by cannot read and write. Thanking you.

Table 2: Properly write the title by mentioning street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors

Response: We mentioned street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors

Reviewer #4

1. From the abstract do not use abbreviations.

Response: Thanks, we minimized the use of abbreviation in the abstract, but we used CI and AOR since they are more frequently used in the abbreviation to minimize size of the abstract.

2. Sample size is too small in amount, how did you conclude?

Response: Dear reviewer, we agree that our sample size looks small. However, as you can see in the sample size determination procedures using double population formula, the sample size was determined based on scientific assumptions and we hope that it is not a major issues. Nevertheless, we agree that higher sample size always acceptable.

3. Your discussion is superficial

Response: Thank you for this key comment and we tried to strengthen the discussion and please kindly visit the revised version. The problem with our discussion was there was lack of study among adults and ARI study was mainly common among children. This limited as unable to discuss as we want. Even some of our discussion was made based using ARI studies among children, which is not valid but still good to see since only few studies available among adult populations. I hope that you understood the situation. Many thanks.

4. Minimize Page Numbers

Response: We tried to minimize the page numbers despite the comparative study nature always taking more ideas compared to the cross-sectional survey. We feel that it is the ideas that contain matters than the number of pages. We tried our best to address your concerns.

5. it has grammatical error, please check it

Response: Thank you for detecting such errors and we addressed these concerns. Please see the revised version.

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for evaluating our manuscript. We have tried to address all the concerns in a proper way and believe that our paper has been improved considerably. We would be happy to make further corrections if necessary and look forward to hearing from you all soon.

I hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in PLoS ONE.

Sincerely yours,

Metadel Adane (PhD in Water and Public Health)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Miguel A Fernández

30 Apr 2021

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Acute Respiratory Infection among Street Sweepers and Door-to-Door Waste Collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-05977R1

Dear Dr. Adane,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Miguel A. Fernández, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors have processed my feedback appropriately, it increased the quality of the article significant. Good luck with your research!

Reviewer #3: The paper has been improved very well. All the comments are properly addressed.

• The title is shortened as suggested

• The abstract is well corrected

• The sampling technique and procedures are briefly stated

• The results are written properly. Percentage errors are well corrected

• Terms such as prevalence and risk factors are avoided, and proportion and associated factors are uniformly used throughout the document

• The assumption for allocating the sample size for each micro enterprise is clearly justified

• The issue of confidentiality is well addressed

• Grammatical and write up errors have been improved

• Factors for street sweepers and door to door waste collectors as well as factors for the overall participants are clearly indicated in separate tables

• The comparison of the proportion of ARI among children and adults are justified

• The conclusion is modified

• The table titles are corrected

By now, I will be happy if the paper is published at PLOS ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Erkihun Tadesse

Reviewer #3: Yes: Getaw Walle Bazie

Acceptance letter

Miguel A Fernández

6 May 2021

PONE-D-20-05977R1

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Acute Respiratory Infection among Street Sweepers and Door-to-Door Waste Collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-sectional Study

Dear Dr. Adane:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Miguel A. Fernández

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Questionnaire. English version of the questionnaire.

    Survey of prevalence and associated factors of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Questionnaire. Amharic (local language) version of the questionnaire.

    Survey of prevalence and associated factors of acute respiratory infection among street sweepers and door-to-door waste collectors in Dessie City, Ethiopia.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES