Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Abstract BACKGROUND: The unexpected increase in COVID‑19‑related waste and its inappropriate disposal
had blown up the threat of retransmission of this infection and adversely impacted the environment.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the existing knowledge about the handling of biomedical
waste (BMW) in the COVID‑19 Hospital setting among health‑care workers (HCWs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a prospective cross‑sectional study done for 3 months, i.e.,
October 2020–December 2020 among nursing professionals across all seniority posted in COVID
hospital. A pretested questionnaire comprised 20 questions was used as a study tool.
RESULTS: The response rate of our study was 94%. The mean age of respondents was 33.97 years,
and the mean length of service was 8.32 years. The study revealed that the respondents had a
mean knowledge score of 12.21 (Median 12, standard deviation 2.129 and 95% confidence interval
of 11.92–12.51).
CONCLUSIONS: There is consensus among the researchers/scholars that COVID‑BMW hazards
are much more significant than regular BMW. Therefore, its awareness among the HCWs can be a
panacea for safer handling of BMW generated in COVID Hospital.

Abstract BACKGROUND: During the 2nd week of July 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19)
infection spreading in the community. Now more than 15 lakhs peoples have been infected in India,
out of the 26816 patients were deceased. COVID 19 outbreaks become an additional hazard to the
health‑care workers (HCWs), leading to fatigue, anxiety, depression and fear of death. The objective
of this questionnaire‑based study is to know about the knowledge of HCWs about COVID 19, their
experiences while dealing with the disease, and the protective measures taken to prevent the infection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross‑sectional, questionnaire‑based study was conducted for
1 month starting from the 2nd week of June 2020 after getting institutional ethical clearance. This
study included 240 HCWs posted in the medical and surgical Departments of All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. This questionnaire was prepared in online Google forms and
required 2 min to complete. Mean, median, range, and standard deviation were used to describe the
continuous variables, and percentages were used to describe the categorical data.
RESULTS: Among 240 HCWs, 79.16% (n = 190) participants have good knowledge and adapted
good precautions (score 15–23) for COVID 19 infection. Rest 20% (n = 48) and 0.8% (n = 2)
participants has average (score 8–14) or poor knowledge (score <8) with adaptation of average or
poor precautionary measures against COVID 19, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study concluded that we have the requirement of more educational training
programs for awareness of HCWs and precautionary measures against COVID 19. Thereby, HCWs
can improve their knowledge and participate in this fight against COVID 19 with more efficiency and
confidence.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: After graduation, public health students should be able to work as health care
givers providing first‑level health care services. Therefore, the educational objectives of public health
bachelor’s programs should ensure that they acquire the capabilities necessary for this purpose.
This study identified the educational objectives that are essential for these students and compared
them with the current curriculum in Isfahan, Iran.
METHODS: This needs assessment study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the
essential educational objectives were identified using a qualitative approach, which involved eight
focus group discussions held by a group consisting of experts of the public health headquarters and
public health network administration offices of Isfahan province and the public health graduates
working in the province’s comprehensive health service centers, who were chosen using the purposive
sampling method (n = 59). In the second phase, a comparative study was performed by turning the
list of essential educational objectives into a checklist and using it to compare these objectives with
the objectives in the current course plan in the examined curriculum. In the end, a list of educational
objectives not included in the current curriculum of the public health bachelor’s program was created.
RESULTS: The focus group discussions produced 433 educational objectives in the cognitive
domain, 79 objectives in the affective domain, and 179 objectives in the psychomotor domain, which
were arranged in eight competency categories. Comparison of the essential educational objectives
with the current curriculum showed that the current curriculum does not cover any of the essential
objectives regarding care for the age groups of 18–29 and 30–59 and the first aid and only partially
covers essential objectives in other competency categories.
CONCLUSION: This study found that considering the requirements of first‑level health services
and the tasks expected from public health graduates to be providing these services, the current
curriculum does not cover all essential learning objectives and should be revised to meet additional
essential educational objectives.