Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research Note
  • Open access
  • Published:

Prevalence, types and outcome of injuries among abattoir workers in Ghana

BMC Research Notes volume 17, Article number: 265 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In many places in the world, workers in the meat processing industry report high incidence of injuries. Details of such injuries are not well known for Ghana or much of Africa.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey involving 300 workers from three major meat processing facilities in the Kumasi metropolis of Ghana was carried out using a structured questionnaire from April to June 2023. The prevalence, types and outcome of injuries among workers were assessed. Test of association was established by Chi square analysis.

Results

Over the prior 6 months, the prevalence of injury was 83.0%. Among the various injury types, lacerations had the highest prevalence (46.0%) followed by musculoskeletal pain (16.7%) bone fractures (14.0%), swelling (13.0%), burns and scalds (7.3%), and dislocations/sprains/strains (6.7%). More than half (58.9%) of injuries sustained were moderately severe (2–7 days of lost work) and nearly half (42.0%) required immediate medical attention. Gender, employment status, wages, availability and use of safety equipment were significantly associated with injuries among abattoir workers.

Conclusions

The incidence of injuries among abattoir workers in Kumasi, Ghana demonstrates a large public health burden requiring attention and improved enforcement through occupational safety interventions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Activities in the meat processing industry predispose worker to various form of injuries, such as deep lacerations, falls, fractures and bites from animals [1,2,3,4,5]. Non-fatal injuries such as sprains and strains are common often requiring time off work or job modifications based on severity [6, 7]. Most studies on injuries in the meat processing industry come from high-income countries. But the few studies that have addressed injuries in the meat processing industry in Africa have shown a high prevalence of injuries among workers, often associated with factors such as dirty slippery floors, kicks and stamps from irate animals and sharp machinery [8,9,10].

Globally and in Ghana, abattoirs are obligated to have occupational safety policies that will mitigate the occurrence of injury. Regrettably these policies are inadequate, poorly coordinated or non-existent in most abattoirs [11,12,13,14].

In Ghana, there has been attention to other occupational safety issues, such as those in construction and mining, food safety and infectious disease risk from abattoirs [15,16,17,18,19]. However, there has been almost no attention paid to injury and safety risks for abattoir workers in Ghana. To support the development of occupational injury control strategies, it is imperative to obtain detailed information on injury characteristics. This study addressed the gap by assessing injury prevalence, types, and outcomes in abattoirs workers in Ghana.

Methods

Study design and setting

The study employed a quantitative research approach using descriptive cross-sectional design to solicit for information from abattoir workers in the Greater Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana. The city has a heterogeneous population and enhanced economic activities. It is the second largest city in Ghana with a population of 3,490,000 and a land size of 299km2 [20]. Meat processing industries in Kumasi receive their supply of animals from different regions in the country, and neighboring countries like Mali and Niger [21].

Study population

The city has 3 major meat processing facilities and 17 smaller facilities with less than 20 workers each. This study was carried out in the three main meat processing facilities. This includes Kumasi Abattoir, the Subtui Musah Slaughterhouse and the Akwatia Line slaughter slab with worker population of 200, 560 and 290 respectively. These three facilities cut across the different grades of meat processing facilities in the country. Workers include those who move animals and work in lairage as well as butchers and slaughterers engaged in killing, singeing and processing of the meat. There are also retailers, administrators and general workers who dispense, inspect the site and keep the facility operating.

Data collection

A structured questionnaire adapted from previous injury literature was employed for the data collection [15, 17]. It was divided into demographic characteristics, types and frequencies of injuries, and outcomes of the injuries occurring in the abattoir. A three-day training was done for the research assistants. The training focused on building understanding on the questionnaire and the objective of the study, conducting interviews and maintaining confidentiality. The questionnaire was in English but most of the respondents had low levels of education. Hence research assistants were trained on how to translate the questions into a language directly understood by the participants, mostly Twi and Hausa. The questionnaire asked about injuries over the prior six months. If a respondent had more than one injury event during that time, they were asked to report on whichever injury they chose.

The tool was pretested at a separate facility (Sofoline Slaughterhouse) not involved in the remainder of the study to assess the questions and the interview skills of the research assistants. Four questions were modified to assess the specific department in which the worker is engaged. Content validity assessment was done by seven experts, who have published extensively on injury related studies and necessary modifications were made before the actual data collection.

An estimated sample size of 300 was calculated using the Yamane formula [22]. Purposive sampling was used. After obtaining ethical clearance and administrative approval from authorities, the principal investigator and research assistants visited the three worksites for a total of eight days. During this time, they approached for interviews workers who were at the worksite that day. The principal investigator sought written informed consent from workers, explaining the objectives of the study. Workers who consented were interviewed. The principal investigator and research assistants interviewed as many workers as possible during the time allotted each day, up until the goal of 300 was achieved. All 300 workers approached agreed to be part of the study. Interviews were anonymous and no names or other identifying information about the respondents were collected. Data collection ran from April to June 2023.

Data analysis

Quantitative tools were employed in data analysis. Data were first cleaned and checked for completeness then exported to IBM SPSS Version 25.0, USA for analysis using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD) and the results were presented in tables, frequencies and percentages. Test of association was established by Chi square analysis.

Results

Respondents’ demographic characteristics

A total sample of 300 respondents participated in the study. Table 1 summarizes their demographic characteristics. The largest single group of participants were between 40–49 years, representing 28.3% of the respondents. The industry is predominantly male (96.7%), and are married (78.0%). Similar proportions of the respondents have primary (24.0%), junior high (21.0%) and secondary education (25.0%) with only 9.0% having tertiary education. Nearly fifty percent of respondents have over 10 years of working experience in the abattoir. Majority (60.0%) are casual workers (46.3%) hired and paid daily wages.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents
Full size table

Prevalence, types and outcome of injuries

In the 6 months prior to the study, 249 workers reported at least one injury for a prevalence of injury of 83.0% (Table 2). Laceration was the most frequent injury sustained by respondents, representing 46.0%, followed by musculoskeletal pain (16.7%) and bone fractures (14.0%). Other leading injuries included swelling of various body parts (13.0%), burns and scalds (7.3%), and dislocation, sprains, or strains (6.7%). Close to half (42.0%) of these injuries sustained required immediate medical attention (42.0%) at health facilities. Another large group (36.7%) were treated first aid by co-workers at the worksite. In terms of long-term outcome, more than half (58.9%) of injuries were moderately severe, leading to 2–7 days of lost work.

Table 2 Prevalence, types and outcome of injuries in the meat processing industry
Full size table

Association between socio-demographic characteristics, safety measures and injuries among workers in the abattoir

Table 3 shows a significant association between gender, employment status, wages and injuries among abattoir workers (p < 0.05). There was low availability of fire extinguisher (33.7%), first aid kits (16.8%), smoke detector (1.4%), emergency exit (12.1%), safety boots (63.2%) and injury incidence record book (4.1%). Only 30.1% of the respondents used PPEs at work. Use of PPEs, availability of fire extinguisher, first aid kits, and smoke detector respectively were significantly associated with injuries (p < 0.05).

Table 3 Association between socio-demographic characteristics, safety measure and occupational injuries among workers in the abattoir in Kumasi, Ghana
Full size table

Discussion

This study reports the injury burden in the meat processing industry in Kumasi, an industry that has seen little attention in terms of research. The study assessed the prevalence, types and outcome of injuries sustained by workers. This study suggests that the prevalence of injury is high with the types being predominantly lacerations, followed by musculoskeletal pain. A significant number of workers sustained moderately severe injuries, losing 2–7 days of work time, as well as requiring medical attention, both of which represent financial losses for the workers. Gender, employment status, wages and availability and use of safety equipment were significantly associated with injuries.

Our findings need to be put into the context of other studies. In high-income countries, injury rates are generally much lower. For instance, injury incidence rates of 15.2 to 22.8 per 100 full-time employees and an annual total injury rates per 100 workers of 6.4% (poultry) and 13.2% (pork) have been reported in abattoir facilities in the United States [7, 23, 24]. All of these reports show far fewer injuries than the current study's finding of 83.0% of workers sustaining at least one injury during the past 6 months (approximately equivalent to 166 injuries per 100 workers per year).

The high burden of injury in Ghana is similar to what has been reported from other African countries. In a study of slaughterhouses in Kenya, Cook et al. found that 25% of workers reported an injury at least once per month, with 8% of workers still having a wound at the time of the interview [25]. In a different study, Makori et al. found that 85% of slaughterhouse workers in the Nairobi area had been injured in the past year [26]. Among 203 workers in five slaughter houses in Ilorin, Nigeria, 88% of workers reported having had at least one injury ever [27].

We examined the types of injuries sustained by workers and our data highlighted lacerations as the most dominate type of injury. It is unsurprising as workers in this sector are usually exposed to numerous hazards such as sharp cutting tools and bones. This finding agrees with studies, both in Africa and in countries elsewhere [9, 23, 25, 28,29,30]. Musculoskeletal pain was the next common type of injury reported by this study possibly due to the repetitive movement and heavy lifting associated with abattoir operations [9, 28]. However, in another study conducted in the United States, bovine related injuries dominated [31].

This study highlights an association between employment status, wages and injuries. Most of the workers in the current study were casual employees who are paid based on their daily wages irrespective of their decade working experience in the industry. Taking a day off is considered as absenteeism and no commission is earned by the worker [32]. It is possible that employees usually work shifts and overtime to make ends meet. Worker tiredness affects attention and reaction times and raises the risk of accidents. Studies have linked shift work and weariness to the probability of accidents [27, 28]. This may possibly be a factor to the high prevalence of injury reported by this study.

Majority of injuries were moderately severe requiring between 2 and 7 days for treatment and recovery, with most respondents needing immediate medical attention. It can be anticipated that the lost wages and cost of treatment will have considerable negative economic consequences to these workers and their families. Most workers received daily pay and would not be paid while out of work. Also, the cost for treatment of even work-related injuries is usually borne by the worker and their families.

Gender of the worker was significantly associated with injuries in this study. It is evident from this and other studies that the industry is male dominated [1, 7, 25] and possibly puts this gender at risk for injuries. This mirrors findings from other studies where gender of the worker has been anticipated to be a major influencer on work place injury [33]. Although other studies suggest that the risk of injury is equivalent for both male and female [8].

The study highlights low PPE usage and the absence of safety equipment in the facilities, similar to findings of other studies in the industry [9, 10, 14, 24, 25]. Meanwhile there is a significant association between these factors and injuries. This finding agrees with other studies that using PPE properly, dramatically lowers the risk of injuries in the industry [27, 34].

Conclusion

The types of injuries noted in the meat processing industry are mostly lacerations, musculoskeletal pain and bone fractures and the frequency of these injuries is high. Most of these injuries are moderately severe necessitating immediate medical treatment. This study highlights a high burden of injuries in the meat processing industries. This reinforces calls for enforcement of existing occupational health policies in this industry.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The study depended on self-report of injuries and there was no way of verifying answers about the types, frequencies and outcome of injuries sustained. A six-month recall period was used which could have led to recall bias for earlier injuries. Despite these limitations, the present study has several strengths. The sample size was large and also the study was conducted in three geographical locations in separate slaughterhouse facilities in the metropolis thereby increasing generalizability.

Availability of data and materials

Datasets used and analyzed in this study are safely kept with the corresponding author and will be available on reasonable request.

References

  1. Dias NF, Tirloni AS, dos Reis DC, Moro AR. Risk of slaughterhouse workers developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders in different organizational working conditions. Int J Ind Ergon. 2020;1(76): 102929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gómez MM. Prediction of work-related musculoskeletal discomfort in the meat processing industry using statistical models. Int J Ind Ergon. 2020;1(75): 102876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Romanov D, Korostynska O, Lekang OI, Mason A. Towards human–robot collaboration in meat processing: challenges and possibilities. J Food Eng. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2022.111117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Holland BJ, Soer R, de Boer MR, Reneman MF, Brouwer S. Preventive occupational health interventions in the meat processing industry in upper-middle and high-income countries: a systematic review on their effectiveness. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015;88:389–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vergara LG, Pansera TR. Ergonomics analysis of the activity of boning shoulder in a pig slaughter-house in the city of Ipiranga-SC. Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):703–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Li S, Subbiah J, Dvorak B. Environmental and occupational impacts from US beef slaughtering are of same magnitude of beef foodborne illnesses on human health. Environ Int. 2019;1(129):507–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Leibler JH, Perry MJ. Self-reported occupational injuries among industrial beef slaughterhouse workers in the Midwestern United States. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017;14(1):23–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mogute JR. Work-related injuries among slaughterhouse workers in Nairobi city county, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation) Kenyatta University 2021.

  9. Jerie S, Matunhira K. Occupational safety and health hazards associated with the slaughtering and meat processing industry in urban areas of Zimbabwe: a case study of the Gweru city Municipal Abattoir. Ghana J Geogr. 2022. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjg.v14i1.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson OE, Etokidem AJ. Occupational hazards and health problems among butchers in Uyo, Nigeria. Niger Med J. 2019;60(3):106–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Meat and Livestock Australia. OHS Reference Guide Australian Meat Industry Part 4: common Hazards. 2001. http://mintrac-whs.com.au/wp-content/uploads/OHS-Reference-Guide-Part4. Accessed 23 Aug 2024.

  12. Annan JS, Addai EK, Tulashie SK. A call for action to improve occupational health and safety in Ghana and a critical look at the existing legal requirement and legislation. Saf Health Work. 2015;6(2):146–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Puplampu BB, Quartey SH. Key issues on occupational health and safety practices in Ghana: A review. Int J Business Soc Sci. 2012;3(19):151–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Osman F, Frederick A, Edmund K. An assessment of abattoirs, slaughterhouses and slaughter practices in the three Northern Regions of Ghana. Trop Veter. 2019;37(1):53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Amissah J, Badu E, Agyei-Baffour P, Nakua EK, Mensah I. Predisposing factors influencing occupational injury among frontline building construction workers in Ghana. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gyedu A, Nakua EK, Otupiri E, Mock C, Donkor P, Ebel B. Incidence, characteristics and risk factors for household and neighbourhood injury among young children in semiurban Ghana: a population-based household survey. Inj Prev. 2015;21(e1):e71–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakua EK, Owusu-Dabo E, Newton S, Adofo K, Otupiri E, Donkor P, Mock C. Occupational injury burden among gold miners in Ghana. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2019;26(4):329–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Adonu RE, Dzokoto L, Salifu SI. Sanitary and hygiene conditions of slaughterhouses and its effect on the health of residents: a case study of Amasaman slaughterhouse in the Ga west municipality. Ghana Food Sci Qual Manag. 2017;65:11–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Asiam RI. Food safety knowledge and food safety practices of meat handlers in abattoirs and butcheries in Accra metropolis of Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Education, Winneba).

  20. Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana 2021 Population and Housing Census. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Frimpong S, Gebresenbet G, Bosona T, Bobobee E, Aklaku E. Animal supply and logistics activities of abattoir chain in developing countries: the case of Kumasi Abattoir, Ghana. J Serv Sci Manag. 2021;5:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Uakarn C, Chaokromthong K, Sintao N. Sample size estimation using Yamane and Cochran and Krejcie and Morgan and Green formulas and Cohen statistical power analysis by G* power and comparisons. Apheit Int J. 2021;10(2):76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Culp K, Brooks M, Rupe K, Zwerling C. Traumatic injury rates in meatpacking plant workers. J Agromed. 2008;13(1):7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kyeremateng-Amoah E, Nowell J, Lutty A, Lees PS, Silbergeld EK. Laceration injuries and infections among workers in the poultry processing and pork meatpacking industries. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(6):669–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cook EA, de Glanville WA, Thomas LF, Kariuki S, Bronsvoort BM, Fèvre EM. Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in western Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Makori CM, Warutere PN, Nguhiu PN. Factors associated with the injuries inflicted to workers in slaughterhouses and meat processing plants in Nairobi, Kenya. Int J Cur Res Life Sci. 2018;7:2020–3.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Odetokun IA, Ghali-Mohammed I, Alhaji NB, Nuhu AA, Oyedele HA, Ameen SA, Adetunji VO. Occupational health and food safety risks in Ilorin, Northcentral Nigeria: a cross-sectional survey of slaughterhouse workers. Food Protect Trends. 2020;40(4):241–50.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Slade J, Alleyne E. The psychological impact of slaughterhouse employment: a systematic literature review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023;24(2):429–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Abdullahi A, Hassan A, Kadarman N, Junaidu YM, Adeyemo OK, Lua PL. Occupational hazards among the abattoir workers associated with noncompliance to the meat processing and waste disposal laws in Malaysia. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2016;13:157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cook EA, de Glanville WA, Thomas LF, Kariuki S, de Clare Bronsvoort BM, Fèvre EM. Risk factors for leptospirosis seropositivity in slaughterhouse workers in western Kenya. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(5):357–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Watts M, Meisel EM, Densie IK. Cattle-related trauma, injuries and deaths. Trauma. 2014;16(1):3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ribas V. On the Line: Slaughterhouse Lives and the Making of the New South (Oakland, CA, 2015; online edn, California Scholarship Online, 22 Sept. 2016), [cited 2024 Aug 23]. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520282957.001.0001.

  33. Khan YA, Davis AL, Taylor JA. Ladders and lifting: how gender affects safety behaviors in the fire service. J Work Behav Health. 2017;32(3):206–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Alam MK, Keiko Y, Hossain MM. Present working conditions in slaughterhouses and meat selling centres and food safety of workers in two districts of bangladesh. Pertanika J Soc Sci Human. 2020;28(2):867–88.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to express appreciation to all the workers and management of the various abattoirs in Kumasi who were respondents of this study and to Mr. Joel Adusei-Gyamfi for the ideas and support.

Funding

This study was supported by grant D43 TW007267 from the Fogarty International Center at the US National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

    Abigail Aban Tetteh, Veronica Millicent Dzomeku, Patience Achiamaa Barnie & Adwoa Gyamfi

  2. Ear, Nose and Throat Nursing School, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana

    Abigail Aban Tetteh

  3. Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, The Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED), Kumasi, Ghana

    Ato Kwamina Arhin

  4. School of Public Health, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

    Benjamin Noble Adjei, Bernard Barnie & Emmanuel Kwaku Nakua

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Charles Mock

  6. Department of Surgery, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

    Peter Donkor

Authors
  1. Abigail Aban Tetteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veronica Millicent Dzomeku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patience Achiamaa Barnie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adwoa Gyamfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ato Kwamina Arhin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Benjamin Noble Adjei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bernard Barnie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Emmanuel Kwaku Nakua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Charles Mock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Peter Donkor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and design of the study was by AAT, VD, PAB. EKN, screened the tool for data collection. VD, EKN, CM, BB, provided methodological insights. VD, PD, AAT, AG, AKA, coordinated data collection. BNA, AKA, AAT, VD, BB, CM carried out the initial analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors discussed the results and critically reviewed its intellectual contents. VD, BB, EKN, PD and CM critically reviewed and revised the manuscript which as then approved by all other authors for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail Aban Tetteh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (CHRPE AP/203/23) with approval from the administrative wing of each of the facilities visited. Written and verbal consent was obtained from respondents after an explanation of every aspect of the research in their preferred language.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tetteh, A.A., Dzomeku, V.M., Barnie, P.A. et al. Prevalence, types and outcome of injuries among abattoir workers in Ghana. BMC Res Notes 17, 265 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06934-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06934-1

Keywords

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

Contact us