Original Article

Determinants of Occupational Health Hazards among Roadside

Automobile Mechanics in Sokoto Metropolis, Nigeria
Oche Mansur Oche1,2, Okafoagu Christina Nneka1, Oladigbolu Remi Abiola1, Ismail Raji1, Ango Timane Jessica1, Hashimu Abdulmumini Bala1, Ijapa Adamu1
1
Department of Community Medicine, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, 2Department of Community Health, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto,
Sokoto State, Nigeria

Abstract
Background: Roadside automobile mechanics are in the course of their work exposed to several hazards that put them at risk of severe
debilitating health challenges. This group of workers, however, is reported not to know much about such hazards and to have little or no
training on workplace safety. Aim: The study aimed to identify the determinants of occupational health hazards among roadside automobile
mechanics in Sokoto Metropolis. Methodology: This was a descriptive, cross‑sectional study, and using a two‑stage sampling technique, a
total of 205 roadside mechanics were recruited for the study. A semi‑structured interviewer‑administered questionnaire was used, and the data
were imputed into and analyzed using IBM SPSS. Results: The mean age of the respondents was 31.10 ± 10.19 years, and over one‑third
of them (38.1%) were general vehicle repairers. Majority of the respondents had good knowledge of and attitude toward workplace hazards.
However, a good proportion (91.0%) of the mechanics felt that their occupation was a risky one and 80.1% ate and 86.1% drank while working.
Type of training and job description were the predictors of knowledge of workplace hazards. Job description was the only predictor of attitude.
Burns, bruises, headache/dizziness, and cuts were the most reported work‑related illnesses and injuries. Conclusion: Although most of the
auto‑mechanics were aware and had good knowledge of workplace hazards, they did not adhere to safety practices in the workplace, mostly
due to nonavailability of protective apparels. There is, therefore, need for continuous health education under the platform of the auto‑mechanics
association so that they can voluntarily adopt safety practices in their workplace.

Keywords: Auto‑mechanics, health hazards, predictors, Sokoto

Résumé
Contexte: Au cours de leur travail, les mécaniciens d’automobiles au bord de la route sont exposés à plusieurs risques qui les exposent à de
graves problèmes de santé débilitants. Cependant, ce groupe de travailleurs ne connaît pas grand‑chose à ces dangers et n’a pas ou peu de
formation sur la sécurité au travail. Objectif: L’étude visait à identifier les déterminants des risques professionnels en matière de santé chez
les mécaniciens automobiles de Sokoto Metropolis. Matériel et Méthodes: Il s’agissait d’une étude transversale descriptive et, en utilisant
une technique d’échantillonnage en deux étapes, un total de 205 mécaniciens de bord de route ont été recrutés pour l’étude. Un questionnaire
administré par un intervieweur semi‑structuré a été utilisé et les données ont été imputées et analysées à l’aide d’IBM SPSS. Résultats: L ‘âge
moyen des répondants était de 31.10 ± 10.19 et plus d’ un tiers d ‘entre eux (38.1%) étaient des réparateurs de véhicules généraux. La majorité
des répondants avaient de bonnes connaissances et une bonne attitude à l’égard des dangers au travail. Cependant, une bonne partie des
mécaniciens estimaient que leur profession était risquée 183 (91,0%)
et majoritaire, en mangeait 161 (80,1%) et en buvait 173 (86,1%) Address for correspondence: Prof. Oche Mansur Oche,
pendant qu’ils travaillaient. Le type de formation et la description Department of Community Medicine, Usmanu Danfodiyo University,
de poste étaient des prédicteurs de la connaissance des dangers au Sokoto, Sokoto State, Nigeria.
travail. La description de travail était le seul prédicteur de l’attitude. E‑mail: ochedr@hotmail.com
Les brûlures, les ecchymoses, les maux de tête/vertiges et les coupures

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to
remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit
is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Access this article online For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
Quick Response Code:
Website: How to cite this article: Oche OM, Nneka OC, Abiola OR, Raji I,
www.annalsafrmed.org Jessica AT, Bala HA, et al. Determinants of occupational health hazards
among roadside automobile mechanics in Sokoto Metropolis, Nigeria. Ann
Afr Med 2020;19:80-8.
DOI:
10.4103/aam.aam_50_18 Submitted: 05-Nov-2018 Revised: 18-Jul-2019
Accepted: 25-Aug-2019 Published: 03-Jun-2020

80 © 2020 Annals of African Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020
étaient les maladies et les blessures liées au travail les plus souvent rapportées. Conclusion: Bien que la plupart des mécaniciens et des
mécaniciennes d’automobiles aient été au courant et aient une bonne connaissance des risques au travail, ils n’ont pas respecté les pratiques de
sécurité sur le lieu de travail. Il existe donc un besoin d’éducation continue en matière de santé dans le cadre de la plate‑forme de l’association
de mécanique automobile afin qu’ils puissent adopter volontairement des pratiques de sécurité sur leur lieu de travail.
Mots-clés: Auto-mécanique, déterminants, risques pour la santé, Sokoto
Introduction
The automobile service industry has a large group of workers
with many being in the unorganized sector.[1] They are involved
in numerous activities which expose them to many physical,
biological, and chemical agents that can be hazardous to their
health.[2] These workers are also prone to workplace accidents
and injuries, many of which are preventable.[2] The International
Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that yearly, approximately
270 million work‑related accidents occur worldwide. [3]
Employees in small and medium enterprises have been shown
to be more prone to work‑related hazards and risks.[4] This
group of workers, however, is reported not to know much about
such hazards and to have little or no training on workplace
safety.[5] The control of occupational hazards decreases the
incidence of accidents and work‑related diseases, as well as
improves the health and general morale of the labor force. This,
in turn, leads to increased workers’ efficiency and decreased
absenteeism from work.[6] In most cases, the economic benefits
far outweigh the costs of eliminating hazards.[6‑8] In Nigeria,
roadside automobile mechanics belong to the informal sector
of the economy and the occupational problems and health
needs of these workers are not well documented.[9] Therefore,
their coverage by occupational health services is negligent and
they are exposed to precarious conditions in the workplace.[10]
Our study therefore was aimed at assessing the determinants
of occupational health hazards among roadside automobile
mechanics in Sokoto Metropolis, Nigeria.
Methodology
This was a descriptive cross‑sectional study carried out in
Sokoto Metropolis located at Sokoto State, Northwest Nigeria.
The study population comprised all roadside mechanics in
Sokoto Metropolis. Sokoto State has 23 local government
areas (four of which are within the metropolis), with a land
mass of 25,972 km2 and an estimated population of 4,802,298
projected for 2017.[11] Farmers form the greater percentage
of the population, and they majorly reside in the rural areas,
while the rest are civil servants, traders, artisans, and people
of other occupations such as tanning and dyeing (and these
are mainly concentrated in the metropolis, being the center of
commercial activities in the State).
The sample size for the study was calculated using the formula
for cross‑sectional descriptive study; using the assumption that
the proportion of those estimated to use protective devices was
14% from a previous study[12] and a 10% nonresponse rate, a
total of 205 auto‑mechanics were recruited into the study. Only
Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020
auto‑mechanics directly involved in the vehicular repair were
included in the study. Spare part dealers and hawkers were
excluded. Participation in the study was limited to consenting
respondents.
A two‑stage sampling technique was used to recruit the study
subjects. In the first stage, one auto‑mechanic area (cluster)
was selected using simple random sampling technique, out of
four auto‑mechanic areas (clusters) within Sokoto Metropolis.
In the second stage, a systematic sampling technique was used
to recruit 205 auto‑mechanics, out of 615 (using a sampling
interval of 3–N/n) in the selected area  (after obtaining a
comprehensive list of all the auto‑mechanics in the selected
area from the executives of the association of auto‑mechanics
in Sokoto).
The data were collected using a pretested semi‑structured
interviewer‑administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was
pretested among auto‑mechanics in another cluster – Sahara
in Sokoto. The questionnaire contained both open‑  and
closed‑ended questions on sociodemographic characteristics
and work profile of the respondents and the knowledge,
attitude, and practice of safety measures. The questionnaire
was adopted from previous studies.[12,13] Research assistants
were recruited and were trained on the objectives of the study
and the general administration of the study instruments.
The questionnaire was checked for completeness and entered
into IBM SPSS® Version  25 (NY, USA).  The data were
summarized using frequencies and percentages and were
presented as tables. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were
carried out to determine the level of associations and predictors
of workplace hazards.
Each correct answer on the knowledge questions was
awarded a mark, with no marks awarded for wrong answers.
Knowledge was graded with scores  ≥75 and  <75 adjudged
adequate and inadequate knowledge, respectively. Similarly,
every correct answer to the attitude question was awarded one
mark, with no marks for wrong answers. Attitude was graded
with scores ≥65 and <65% adjudged as positive and negative
attitude, respectively. The level of statistical significance was
set at P < 0.05 at 95% confidence interval.
Approval for the study was sought from the Ethical Committee
of the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital,
Sokoto. Permission to carry out the study was sought from the
Association of Auto‑Mechanics, and verbal informed consent
was obtained from each study subject after detailed explanation
of the objectives and the procedures of the study.
81
 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020

Results 185 (92.0%) reported cuts and lacerations, and 145 (71.4%)

reported incidents of fire outbreak as part of hazards at
A total of 205 questionnaires were administered to the
their workplace. One hundred and twenty‑one  (59.6%)
respondents. All questionnaires administered were completely
of the auto‑mechanics had good knowledge of workplace
filled, returned, and analyzed after validation (giving a response
hazards [Table 3].
rate of 100%). The ages of the study participants ranged from
15 to 56  years, with a mean age of 31.1  ±  10.2  years. Of More than three‑quarters, 87 (73.7%), of the general repair/
205 auto‑mechanics, 95  (46.8%) of them were single, only engine mechanics had adequate knowledge of workplace
1 (0.5%) was either separated, divorced, or cohabiting, with hazard compared to 33 (39.3%) of body works/electrical and
more than half, 104 (51.7%) of them having secondary school other mechanics. The difference was statistically significant,
education [Table 1]. P  <  0.001. All other sociodemographic variables were not
associated with knowledge of work place hazard [Table 4].
Majority, i.e.  169  (86.2%), of the respondents worked on
full‑time basis, with 118 (58.4%) working as general vehicle Majority of the mechanics felt that their occupation was a risky
repairers/engine mechanics. One hundred and seven (53.2%) one 183 (91.0%), dangers of their occupation can be reduced by
respondents had put in less than 10 years of working experience. any means 193 (96.5%), and the use of protective appliances
One hundred and twenty (59.4%) respondents worked for more were desirable at their workplace 193  (96.5%). Almost all
than 8 h a day, 76 (37.4) were apprentices, and only 20 (10%) 188  (93.5%) the respondents had positive attitude toward
had attended a training on hazard prevention [Table 2]. workplace hazards with 112 (96.6%) of the general repair/engine
mechanics having positive attitude, while 75  (89.3) of body
One hundred and eighty (90.0%) of the respondents had never works/electrical/others had positive attitude and the differences
attended any training on the prevention of hazards at workplace, were statistically significant, P = 0.04 [Tables 5 and 6]. Table 7
190  (94.5%) were aware of exposure to hazards at their shows that those with formal education were 96% less likely to
workplace, 183 (92.4%) reported harsh weather conditions; have poor knowledge, P = 0.032 (or those with good knowledge
were 5.1 times more likely to have good knowledge of workplace
Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents hazard). Roadside mechanics whose job involved general
repair or engine repair were 4.6  times more likely to have
Variables Frequency (%)
good knowledge compared to car electrician, body works, and
Age (years)
others, P < 0.001 (or body works, electrical, and others were
<40 159 (78.3)
≥40 44 (21.7)
Total 203 (100) Table 2: Work pattern and job description of respondents
Marital status of respondents
Variables Frequency (%)
Single 95 (46.8)
Married 103 (50.7) Work pattern
Separated 1 (0.5) Full-time 169 (86.2)
Divorced 1 (0.5) Part-time 27 (13.8)
Widowed 2 (1.0) Total 196 (100.0)
Co-habiting 1 (0.5) Job description
Total 203 (100) General repair/engine 118 (58.4)
Educational level Body works/electrical/others 84 (41.6)
Informal 9 (4.5) Total 202 (100.0)
Formal 192 (95.5) Work experience (years)
Total 201 (100) <10 107 (53.2)
Tribe ≥10 94 (46.8)
Hausa 43 (21.2) Total 201 (100.0)
Fulani 0 (0.0) Work hours per day
Igbo 15 (7.4) ≤8 82 (40.6)
Yoruba 121 (59.6) >8 120 (59.4)
Others* 24 (11.8) Total 202 (100.0)
Total 203 (100) Work category
Daily income (Naira) Apprentice 76 (37.4)
<500 11 (5.5) Employed 127 (62.6)
500-1000 55 (27.6) Total 203 (100.0)
1001-2999 23 (11.6) Attended any training on hazard prevention
≥3000 110 (55.3) Yes 20 (10.0)
Total 199 (100) No 180 (90.0)
*Others - Zuru, Edo, Igala, Kaaba, and Bandel Total 200 (100.0)

82 Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020

180
Table 3: Awareness and knowledge of workplace hazard 166
161
160
among respondents 153
140 131
Variables Frequency (%)

Number of respondents
120
Are you aware that you are exposed to hazard at your
100
workplace?
80
Yes 190 (94.5)
No 11 (5.5) 60

Is the weather part of the hazards at your workplace? 40

Yes 176 (92.4) 20

No 14 (7.6) 0
Handwashing with fuel Washing vehicle Applying Sucking of fuel
If yes, what weather conditions affect you most at parts with fuel fuel/hydraulic bruises
your workplace?
Excessive sunlight 148 (84.2) Figure 1: Respondents’ work habits
Excessive cold 4 (2.2)
Wind 14 (8.2) 2.3 times more likely to have good practice), P = 0.029. Those
Rainfall 9 (4.9)
who had good knowledge were 64.9% less likely to have poor
Others 1 (0.5)
practice (or those who have poor knowledge were 2.9 times
Cuts and Lacerations are part of hazards at your
workplace more likely to have good practice), P =  0.003  [Table  9].
Yes 162 (92.0) Majority of the respondents exhibited habits such as washing
No 14 (8.0) hands with fuel, 166 (82.6%), and applying fuel or hydraulics to
Fire outbreak is part of hazard at your workplace wounds [Figure 1]. Table 10 shows that there was a statistically
Yes 126 (71.4) significant relationship between job description and all the
No 50 (28.6) habits examined. A higher percentage of general repair/engine
Tetanus is a complication of hazards in your mechanics were involved in the harmful habits compared to the
workplace
other mechanics, P < 0.001.
Yes 96 (54.7)
No 80 (45.3) The commonly experienced work‑related illnesses were bruises
Is your workplace prone to breading of mosquitoes? 171 (89.5%), headaches/dizziness 159 (83.7%), and cuts and
Yes 189 (94.5) punctures 152 (80.0%). A higher proportion of general vehicle
No 11 (5.5) repairers/engine mechanics  (61, 61.0%), experienced burns
Is your workplace prone of rat infestation? compared to body works and other mechanics, although this
Yes 170 (84.6)
was not statistically significant, P = 0.302. Crushed digits, cuts
No 31 (15.4)
and punctures, and headaches/dizziness were more common
Petrol is a hazard at your workplace?
among the general repair/engine mechanics, and this were all
Yes 133 (75.9)
No 43 (24.1)
statistically significant, P < 0.005 [Tables 11 and 12].
Grease causes hazards at your workplace?
Yes 102 (58.1) Discussion
No 74 (41.9)
Auto‑mechanics are involved in numerous activities which
Drinking engine oil is harmful?
expose them to many physical and chemical hazards that
Yes 155 (76.7)
No 47 (23.3)
could be detrimental to their health.[2] Auto‑mechanics in this
Battery acid is harmful to the skin? study were found to be predominantly males, and this is not
Yes 173 (85.2) surprising as the job is physically demanding and strenuous
No 30 (14.8) limiting female participation. This is in agreement with several
Hazards in your occupation include fatigue? similar studies.[5,9,10,12‑14] Over half of the respondents worked
Yes 170 (89.9) for over 8 h per day. This is not encouraging as most of the
No 20 (10.1) workers did not meet the limit of a maximum work hour of
Knowledge of workplace hazards 8  h per day as stipulated by the hours of work convention
Adequate (≥ 75%) 113 (59.6) 1930 (No. 30), which is an ILO standard aimed at providing
Inadequate (50%-74.9%) 82 (40.4) protection for workers’ safety and health, thereby allowing
for a fair balance between work and family life.[15] Workers
4.6 times more likely to have poor knowledge of workplace who spent more than 8 h per day may experience more stress
hazards). Those with inadequate knowledge were 82% less at the end of the day, and this could also increase the risk of
likely (or 5.5 times less likely) to have positive attitude [Table 8]. hazards at the workplace. A similar study in Uyo, Nigeria, is
Those with apprenticeship training were 56.5% less likely to in consonance with this finding as over half of the respondents
have poor practice (or those with apprenticeship training were in that study worked for 9–12 h per day.[16]

Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020 83

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020

Table 4: Factors associated with knowledge of workplace hazard among respondents

Variables Inadequate knowledge Adequate knowledge Test statistic P
Age group (years)
<40 66 (41.5) 93 (58.5) 0.379 0.538
≥40 16 (36.4) 28 (63.6)
Education
Informal 6 (66.7) 3 (33.3) Fisher’s exact 0.163
Formal 76 (39.6) 116 (60.4)
Training
Nonapprenticeship 27 (34.6) 51 (65.4) 1.757 0.185
Apprenticeship 55 (44.0) 70 (56.0)
Nature of work
Apprentice 33 (43.4) 43 (56.6) 0.462 0.497
Employed 49 (38.6) 78 (61.4)
Years of experience
<10 47 (43.9) 60 (56.1) 1.251 0.263
≥10 34 (36.2) 60 (63.8)
Job description
General repair/engine 31 (26.3) 87 (73.7) 24.139 <0.001
Body works, electrical, and others 51 (60.7) 33 (39.3)
Attended any training on how to prevent hazards at workplace
Yes 7 (35.0) 13 (65.0) 0.331 0.565
No 75 (41.7) 105 (58.3)

In this study, majority of the respondents were aware of

Table 5: Respondents’ attitude toward workplace hazard
exposure to hazards at their workplace. This may not be
Variables Frequency (%) unrelated to the fact that most of them had secondary level
Do you feel your occupation is a dangerous one? of education and had worked for more than 5 years and so
Yes 183 (91.0) were aware of the hazards. This is in contrast to a study in
No 18 (9.0) Ilorin, Nigeria, which revealed that auto‑mechanics were
Do you feel the danger of your occupation can be not aware of the full extent of occupational hazards to which
reduced by any means?
Yes 193 (96.5)
they were exposed.[14] Although this group of workers has
No 7 (3.5)
been reported not to know much about hazards in their
Do you feel the use of protective gadgets is desirable workplace,[4] it is impressive to note that workers in this study
in your occupation? were quite knowledgeable as a large proportion of them had
Yes 193 (96.5) good knowledge of the hazards they were exposed to in the
No 7 (3.5) workplace. A similar study in Uyo, Nigeria, also found that
Would you be willing to use protective gadgets if eight out of every ten respondents had good knowledge of the
introduced to you?
use of personal protective equipment (PPE).[16] However, very
Yes 198 (98.5)
few respondents in this study reported receiving any form of
No 3 (1.5)
training on workplace safety. Adequate training has been found
Do you feel the tools you use at the workplace can
cause bodily harm to you? to lead to increased consciousness of workplace hazards and
Yes 190 (94.5) the role of safety measures in minimizing their effects. Other
No 11 (5.5) studies in Nigeria and India even revealed that no respondents
Do you feel you are fully aware of safety measures received any form of training on workplace safety.[1,16]
that you should use to protect yourself while
working? The study also found that more than half of the respondents
Yes 177 (88.1) with apprenticeship training (56.4%) and nonapprenticeship
No 24 (11.9) training (51, 65.4%) had adequate knowledge of workplace
Do you feel you can help protect your health and hazards, and these findings were statistically significant.
safety while working by making some changes to the A  higher proportion of general vehicle repairer/engine
way you work?
mechanics had adequate knowledge of workplace hazard. This
Yes 193 (96.0)
No 8 (4.0)
could be related to their more in‑depth and extensive training
General attitude toward workplace hazards compared to the other forms of mechanics.
Positive (≥75%) 188 (93.5) The significant predictors of knowledge of workplace hazard
Negative (<75%) 13 (6.5) in this study were education and job description. Respondents

84 Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020

Table 6: Factors associated with attitude toward Table 8: Predictors of attitude toward workplace hazards
workplace hazards among respondents among respondents using binary logistic regression
Variables Poor Good Test P analysis
attitude attitude statistics Predictors aOR 95% CI for Exp(B) P
Age group (years) Lower Upper
<40 11 (7.0) 146 (93.0) Fisher’s 0.738
Age (<40 years vs. ≥40 years*) 1.094 0.149 8.014 0.930
≥40 2 (4.5) 42 (95.5) exact test
Education (informal vs. formal*) 0.186 0.023 1.503 0.115
Education
Training (nonapprenticeship vs. 0.652 0.176 2.411 0.521
Informal 2 (22.2) 7 (77.8) Fisher’s 0.109 apprenticeship*)
Formal 11 (5.8) 179 (94.2) exact test
Nature of work 0.366 0.079 1.699 0.200
Training (apprentice vs. employed*)
Nonapprenticeship 5 (6.5) 72 (93.5) Fisher’s 1.000 Work experience 1.286 0.236 7.022 0.772
Apprenticeship 8 (6.5) 116 (93.5) exact test (<10 years vs. ≥10 years*)
Nature of work Job description (general repair/engine 3.728 0.781 17.790 0.099
Apprentice 7 (9.3) 68 (90.7) Fisher’s 0.241 vs. bod works, electrical, and others*)
Employed 6 (4.8) 120 (95.2) exact test Attended any training on hazard 0.928 0.094 9.144 0.949
prevention (yes vs. no*)
Work experience (years)
Knowledge 0.182 0.036 0.909 0.038
<10 8 (7.5) 98 (92.5) 0.382 0.536
(inadequate vs. adequate*)
≥10 5 (5.4) 88 (94.6)
*Reference group. aOR=Adjusted odds ratio, CI=Confidence interval
Job description
General repair/engine 4 (3.4) 112 (96.6) 4.232 0.040
Body works, electrical, 9 (10.7) 75 (89.3) Table 9: Predictors of practice
and others
Work hours per day Predictors aOR 95% CI for aOR P
≤8 3 (3.7) 79 (96.3) 1.846 0.174 Lower Upper
>8 10 (8.5) 108 (91.5) Age (<40 years vs. ≥40 years*) 0.690 0.266 1.787 0.445
Knowledge Education (informal vs. formal*) 0.199 0.035 1.125 0.068
Inadequate 11 (13.6) 70 (86.4) 11.346 0.001 Training (nonapprenticeship vs. 0.435 0.206 0.918 0.029
Adequate 2 (1.7) 118 (98.3) apprenticeship*)
Nature of work 0.583 0.249 1.365 0.214
(apprentice vs. employed*)
Table 7: Predictors of knowledge of workplace hazards Work experience 0.799 0.333 1.917 0.615
(<10 years vs. ≥10 years*)
among respondents
Job description (general repair/engine 1.617 0.785 3.330 0.192
aOR 95% CI for aOR P vs. bod works, electrical, and others*)
Lower Upper Attended any training on hazard 1.006 0.302 3.348 0.992
prevention (yes vs. no*)
Training (nonapprenticeship vs. 1.154 0.580 2.297 0.683
Knowledge 0.351 0.176 0.701 0.003
apprenticeship*)
(inadequate vs. adequate*)
Education (informal vs. formal*) 0.191 0.042 0.868 0.032
Attitude (<75% vs. ≥75%) 0.416 0.102 1.691 0.220
Nature of work (apprentice vs. 0.682 0.299 1.557 0.363
*Reference group. aOR=Adjusted odds ratio, CI=Confidence interval
employed*)
Work experience 0.877 0.374 2.056 0.763
(<10 years vs. ≥10 years*) secondary education. This finding highlights the importance of
Job description (general repair/engine 4.608 2.402 8.842 <0.001 education even among apprentices. Another study by Sambo
vs. bod works, electrical, and others*) et al. in Zaria, Northwestern Nigeria, reported that the major
Age (<40 years vs. ≥ 40 years*) 1.020 0.415 2.503 0.966 determinants of hazard among roadside mechanics were
Attended any training on hazard 1.081 0.361 3.235 0.889 training type, training duration, years of experience, and level
prevention (yes vs. no*)
*Reference group. aOR=Adjusted odds ratio, CI=Confidence interval
of awareness of protective device.[13]
It is noteworthy that a good number of the respondents had
who had formal education were more likely to have good a positive attitude toward workplace hazards. Psychological
knowledge compared to those with informal education. research has shown that an individuals’ attitude toward
Knowledge about workplace hazard may not necessitate any personal responsibility for safety is closely related to their
form of training because, with observation, it is apparent to likelihood of suffering a workplace accident or disease.[11]
see machines or equipment that may be hazardous to man. Therefore, the positive attitude exhibited by the respondents
The general vehicle repairers/engine mechanics had higher meant that they were less likely to suffer a workplace accident
odds of having adequate knowledge. This might be related to or disease. Furthermore, most of the workers in this study
high literacy among the respondents, half of whom had at least felt that their work was a risky one. In a similar study in

Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020 85

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020

Table 10: Association between sociodemographic characteristics and respondents’ work habits
Variable Sucking of fuel Test statistic* P
Job description Yes No
General repair/engine 100 (86.2) 16 (13.8) 54.599 <0.001
Body works, electrical, and others 30 (35.7) 54 (64.3)
Variable Hand - washing with fuel Test statistic* P
Job description Yes No
General repair/engine 115 (99.1) 1 (0.9) 52.956a <0.001
Body works, electrical, and others 50 (59.5) 34 (40.5)
Variable Washing vehicle parts with fuel Test statistic* P
Job description Yes No
General repair/engine 116 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 69.048 <0.001
Body works, electrical, and others 44 (52.4) 40 (47.6)
Variable Applying fuel/hydraulic to treat bruises Test statistic* P
Job description Yes No
General repair/engine 98 (84.5) 18 (15.5) 10.896 0.001
Body works, electrical, and others 54 (64.3) 30 (35.7)
*Pearson’s Chi-square test. aP≤ 0.001 is significant for all the variables examined there

encouraged most of the respondents to use them. This would

Table 11: Work-related illnesses/injuries*
go a long way in reducing the risks associated with their work.
Variables* Frequency (%) However, a study conducted among auto‑mechanics in Ibadan
Burns 101 (53.2) found that protective clothing was not used by the majority of
Bruises 171 (89.5) workers.[5] In contrast to our findings, studies in Tanzania and
Crushed digits 98 (51.6) Saudi Arabia reported low use of PPEs by auto‑echanics.[21,22]
Cuts and punctures 152 (80.0) Several studies have alluded to the fact that PPE provides a
Backaches 145 (76.3)
physical barrier to workplace hazards.[23,24]
Joint pains 95 (50.0)
Eye irritation/eye injury 44 (23.2) A worrisome trend seen in this study was that a good proportion
Fall from elevated platform 6 (3.2) of workers ate and drank at the workplace. Being in the
Fall on wet floor 11 (5.8) informal sector, there are no specially designated areas for
Fracture bone 13 (6.8) eating or drinking, and so, the workers have no choice but to do
Skin irritation/rashes 35 (18.4) so at the workplace. It is known that some of these workers who
Headaches/dizziness 159 (83.7) consumed their meals in the workshops were greatly exposed
Coughing/chest congestions 98 (51.6) to lead and this has adverse effect on their health.[25,26] This
*Multiple response analysis
underscores the need for the provision of designated eating
areas to reduce exposure to such risks.
India, most of the mechanics opined that their work was
also risky.[17] The study also reported a poor habit practiced among
automobile mechanics at workplace, with majority of them
Respondents’ job description and knowledge of workplace
reported sucking fuel with rubber tubes, washing hands, and
hazards were the only variables associated with attitude of
vehicle parts with fuel. They also applied fuel/hydraulic oil
workplace hazards. However, after controlling for other factors,
to treat bruises and burns. This was common among general
knowledge was the only significant predictor of attitude. This
vehicle repairer/engine compared with other groups. Fuel,
finding is important because, if knowledge of the mechanics
for instance, if absorbed can increase blood lead and benzene
is improved through training or adequate mentorship, then
levels.[27,28] There have been reported cases of lead poisoning
they can have positive attitude toward workplace hazards and
and death from ingestion and inhalation of fuel among
therefore take adequate and necessary precautions to prevent
mechanics.[29] Further, a man whose hands and forearms
workplace hazards.
were heavily exposed to mineral oil hydraulic fluids in his
The self‑reported safety practices among the respondents were job developed weakness in his hands.[30] The different groups
generally good. However, over a third did not wear PPE. PPE of auto‑technicians therefore came in contact with fuel
provides a physical barrier to chemical, physical, and biological while working which may have numerous negative health
hazards at the workplace when these hazards cannot be consequences that includes dermatitis, skin sensitization,
completely precluded.[18‑20] The availability of some of the PPEs eczema, and oil acne.[31]

86 Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020

Table 12: Health problems among different groups of automobile mechanics

Variables General repair/engine Body works, electrical, and others Test statistic* P
Burns 61 (61.0) 39 (39.0) 1.067 0.302
Bruises 105 (62.1) 64 (37.9) 8.661 0.003
Crushed digits 65 (67.0) 32 (33.0) 6.504 0.011
Cuts and punctures 95 (62.9) 56 (37.1) 8.283 0.004
Backaches 88 (61.1) 56 (38.9) 2.309 0.129
Joint pains 61 (64.2) 34 (35.8) 3.72 0.054
Eye irritation/eye injury 21 (47.7) 23 (52.3) 2.436 0.119
Fall from elevated platform 3 (50.0) 3 (50.0) 0.146 0.702
Fall on wet floor 10 (90.9) 1 (9.1) Fisher’s exact 0.026
Fracture bone 9 (69.2) 4 (30.8) 0.812 0.367
Skin irritation/rashes 13 (38.2) 21 (61.8) 5.988 0.014
Headaches/dizziness 98 (62.0) 60 (38.0) 7.101 0.008
Coughing/chest ingestion 56 (57.7) 41 (42.3) 0.043 0.835
*Pearson’s Chi square

The common work‑related illnesses/injuries reported by Conflicts of interest

respondents were mainly bruises, headache, dizziness,
and cuts/punctures. Burns was reported in a significant
proportion of the respondents. This was probably due
to contact with soldering and welding operations on hot
surfaces, exhaust pipes, radiator, and cooling system
pipes.[31] Although majority of the respondents reported
being aware of the hazards associated with their jobs, that
awareness did not seem to help reduce the health problems
they suffered. The bruises reported could have been due
to failure to wear PPEs at work while crushed digits, cuts
and punctures may occur during lifting of engine parts or
falls. All these injuries could be worsened due to failure to
use PPEs. Studies have revealed that working underneath
vehicles and using heavy machinery and tool for several
hours make auto‑technicians prone to musculoskeletal
problems and injuries.[32]
Headache or dizziness were often reported by at least eight of
every ten general vehicle repairers, auto‑electricians, welders,
motor engine repairers, and panel beaters. Some of them
may work for hours without eating since they do not have a
restaurant nearby predisposing them to hypoglycemia that can
present with headache and dizziness.
Conclusion
The study reported good knowledge and attitude of automobile
mechanics toward workplace hazards. However, their
knowledge did not translate to good practices since most of
them had poor practices generally, leading to work‑related
illnesses and injuries. There is need to conduct routine
education on work‑related hazards and ensure provision and
utilization of PPEs during their monthly association meeting
to reduce work‑related illnesses and injuries. The provision of
designated eating areas will go a long way to reducing exposure
to workplace hazards.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Philip  M, Alex  RG, Sunny  SS, Alwan  A, Guzzula  D, Srinivasan  R.
A study on morbidity among automobile service and repair workers in an
urban area of South India. Indian J Occup Environ Med 2014;18:9‑12.
2. Santana  VS, Loomis  D. Informal jobs and non‑fatal occupational
injuries. Ann Occup Hyg 2004;48:147‑57.
3. International Labor Organization. Facts on Safe Work. Available from:
https://www.ilo.org/safework. [Last accessed on 2017 May 18].
4. Schneider  S, Becker  S. Prevalence of physical activity among the
working population and correlation with work‑related factors: Results
from the first German National Health Survey. J  Occup Health
2005;47:414‑23.
5. Omokhodion  FO. Environmental hazards of automobile mechanics in
Ibadan, Nigeria. West Afr J Med 1999;18:69‑72.
6. Asogwa SE. A survey of working conditions in small‑scale industries in
Nigeria. J Occup Med 1981;23:775‑7.
7. Adegbola O. The impact of urbanization and industrialization on health
conditions: The case of Nigeria. World Health Stat Q 1987;40:74‑83.
8. Asogwa SE. A Guide to Occupational Health Practice in Developing
Countries. 3rd Edition. Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publisher; 2007 p. 86-90.
9. Jinadu MK. Occupational health problems of motor vehicle mechanics,
welders, and painters in Nigeria. R Soc Health J 1982;102:130‑2.
10. NPC and ICF Macro. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008.
Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission and ICF Macro; 2009.
11. One Test. Work Safety Assessment. Available from: http://www.onetest.
com.au/home/work‑safety. [Last accessed on 2017 May 04].
12. Omokhodion  FO, Osungbade  OO. Health problems of automobile
mechanics in Nigeria. Trop Doct 1996;26:102‑4.
13. Sambo MN, Idris SH, Shamang A. Determinants of occupational health
hazards among roadside automobile mechanics in Zaria, North Western
Nigeria. Bo Med J 2012;9:5‑9.
14. Awoyemi AO. Awareness about occupational hazards among Roadside
auto mechanics in Ilorin, Nigeria. Niger J Comm Med Prim Health Care
2002;14:27‑33.
15. International Labour Organization. Working Time in the Twenty‑First
Century. Report for Discussion at the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on
Working‑Time Arrangements  (17‑21  October 2011). 1st  ed. Geneva:
International Labour Office; 2011. p. 3‑9.
16. Johnson OE, Motilewa OO. Knowledge and use of personal protective
equipment among auto technicians in Uyo, Nigeria. Br J Educ Soc
Behav Sci 2016;15:1‑8.
17. Thangaraj S, Shireen N. Occupational health hazards among automobile
mechanics working in an urban area of Bangalore – A cross sectional

Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020 87

 Oche, et al.: Annals of African medicine 2020
study. Int J Med Sci Public Health 2017;6:18‑22.
18. Alli  BO. Fundamental Principles of Occupational Health and Safety.
2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office; 2008.
19. Yeung RS, Chan JT, Lee LL, Chan YL. The use of personal protective
equipment in Hazmat incidents. Hong Kong J Emerg Med 2002;9:171‑6.
20. Felicia  N, Karen‑Leigh  E, Cally  M. Current evidence regarding
non‑compliance with personal protective equipment: An integrative
review to illuminate implications for nursing practice. ACORN J
Perioper Nurs Aust 2012;25:22‑30.
21. Rongo  LM, Barten  F, Msamanga  GI, Heederik  D, Dolmans  WM.
Occupational exposure and health problems in small‑scale industry
workers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A  situation analysis. Occup
Med (Lond) 2004;54:42‑6.
22. Taha  AZ. Knowledge and practice of preventive measures in small
industries in Al‑Khobar. Saudi Med J 2000;21:740‑5.
23. Neo F, Edward K, Mills C. Current evidence regarding noncompliance
with personal protective equipment: An integrative review to illuminate
implications for nursing practice. ACORN J Perioper Nurs Austr
2012;25:22‑6.
24. Yeung RS, Chan JT, Lee LL, Chan YL. The use of personal protective
equipment in Hazmat incidents. Hong Kong J Emerg Med 2002;9:171‑6.
25. Karita  K, Nakao  M, Ohwaki  K, Yamanouchi  Y, Nishikitani  M,
Nomura K, et al. Blood lead and erythrocyte protoporphyrin levels in
88
association with smoking and personal hygienic behaviour among lead
exposed workers. Occup Environ Med 2005;62:300‑3.
26. World Health Organization. Recommended Health‑Based Limits in
Occupational Exposures to Health Metals, Report of WHO Study
Group 647. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.
27. Oluwagbemi BF. Basic Occupational Health and Safety. 2nd ed. Ibadan,
Nigeria: Vertex Media Limited; 2007.
28. Udonwa NE, Uko EK, Ikpeme BM, Ibanga IA, Okon BO. Exposure
of petrol station attendants and auto mechanics to Premium
Motor Spirits Fumes in Calabar, Nigeria. J  Environ Public Health
2009;2009:1‑5.
29. Anetor  JI, Babalola OO, Adeniyi FA, Akingbola TS. Observations on
the hemapoeitic systems in tropical lead poisoning. Niger J Physiol Sci
2002;17:9‑15.
30. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological
Profile for Hydraulic Fluid. Atlanta, GeorgiaA, USA: Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry; 1997.
31. International Labour Organization. Encyclopaedia of Occupational
Health and Safety. 4th  ed., Vol.  3. Geneva: International Labour
Organization; 1998. p. 26‑102.
32. Punnett L, Wegman DH. Work related musculoskeletal disorders: The
epidemiological evidence and the debate. L  Electromyogr Kinesiol
2004;14:13‑2.
Annals of African Medicine  ¦  Volume 19  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  April-June 2020
Copyright of Annals of African Medicine is the property of Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.