Sero-prevalence of hepatitis viral infections among sanitary workers across worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Sanitation or sanitary workers are exposed to hepatitis virus infections because of filthy and dangerous working conditions. The current global systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled sero-prevalence of occupationally associated hepatitis virus infection among them. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and study design (PICOS) were used for flow diagram, and review questions, respectively. Four databases other methods were used published articles from 2000 to 2022. Boolean logic (AND, OR), MeSH, and keywords were used: (Occupation *OR Job *OR Work) AND (Hepatitis A *OR Hepatitis B virus *OR Hepatitis C virus *OR Hepatitis E virus) AND (Solid waste collectors [SWCs] *OR Street sweepers [SS] *OR Sewage workers [STWs] *OR health care facilities cleaners [HCFCs)) AND (Countries). Stata MP/17 software was used for pooled prevalence analysis, meta-regression analysis (Hedges) at a 95% confidence interval (CI:95%). Results A total of 182 studies were identified studies, a total of 28 studies were included from twelve countries. Of these, from developed (n = 7) and developing countries (n = 5). From total a of 9049 sanitary workers, 5951(66%), 2280 (25%) and 818 (9%) were STWs, SWCs and SS, respectively. Globally, the pooled sero-prevalence of occupational-related hepatitis viral infections among sanitary workers was 38.06% (95% CI: 30–0.46.12). Of this, it was 42.96% (95% CI: 32.63–53.29) and 29.81% (95% CI: 17.59–42.02) for high-income and low-income countries, respectively. Meanwhile, by sub-analysis, the highest pooled sero-prevalence of hepatitis viral infections by categories, type and year were 47.66% (95%CI: 37.42–57.90), 48.45% (95% CI: 37.95–58.96), and 48.30% (95% CI: 36.13–60.47) for SWTs, HAV, and 2000 to 2010 year, respectively. Conclusion The consistency of the evidence suggests that sanitation workers, particularly sewage workers, are susceptible to occupationally acquired hepatitis regardless of their working conditions, necessitating significant changes to occupational health and safety regulations from governmental policies and other initiatives to reduce risks among sanitary workers.

Infectious diseases among waste handlers and its relation to their work ability, Minia city, Egypt

“…A meta-analysis done in 2023 showed that the overall pooled seroprevalence of HAV infection among waste collectors across the world was 56.7%. While 22.6% and 22.8% for HBV and HCV respectively (5) . There were no HIV positive personnel in the current study and that was consistent with Beni Suef MSW workers (0%) (21) , Sanaa', Yemen medical waste handlers in hospitals (0%) (24) and Brazil garbage recycling cooperatives workers 0.75% (3) .…”

“…They may become infected with the Hepatitis A Virus (HAV) and salmonellosis through contact with garbage that has been contaminated with infectious faeces. The activation of the fecal-oral pathway by poor sanitation and improper work practices like smoking or eating while working without following proper hygi-enic precautions may increase the risk of HAV virus and salmonella transmission (5,6) Aim of the study: This study aims to identify the frequency of some infectious diseases among Minia waste collectors which are HCV, HBV, HAV, HIV and salmonellosis. Investigating the relationship between these diseases and the workers' work ability was another aim for this study.…”

Leadership Style Affects Nursing Quality Improvement: Meta-Analysis Study

“…The limitations of the review question are clearly defined by the development of exclusion and inclusion criteria based on the PICOS format. (32) Application in the meta-analysis three steps need to be done, namely among them: (33) 1. Determine the problem formulation of research in PICOST In this step, the formulation of meta-analysis research problems is carried out by determining PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome).…”