Standard precautions perception and practice among health workers in the obstetrics-gynecology department of a referral hospital in Cameroon

  1. Fabrice Zobel Lekeumo Cheuyem
  2. Emilia Enjema Lyonga
  3. Innocent Takougang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s12913-025-13448-4
  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/16933811.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction clearly explains the objective of the study. However, the author can link the maternal and child mortality better as this stands as the concept for the research
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat inappropriate The method is somewhat inappropriate owing to limitations on the sample size, sampling techniques. Also, there is no further justification for what was done following the 3 months of data collection. It would be much better if the larger sample size were utilized as it seems more like a pilot study. Furthermore, the data management wasn't stated and the study tool used was stated to be pre-tested but no information was given
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported The conclusion was somewhat supported by the data as there is a high possibility of gender bias with most participants being female
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly The discussion and the potential next step need to be strengthened in terms of justifying consequential findings such as, people of high experience less likely to uptake vaccines and other alarming findings. There should be a strong reason for the findings. Also, the comparison across different disciplines wasn't taken into consideration as there is diverse exposure based on different discipline captured.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Not likely This Preprint contributes more to practices than academic knowledge. The limitation of to sample size isn't sufficient to drive policy or reform
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved It can be improved on with the concerns raised
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2025.04.21.25326141 on medRxiv