DISSERTATION ON

A STUDY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIDEO

ASSISTED TEACHING ON KNOWLEDGE REGARDING ILL
EFFECTS OF PLASTIC USAGE AMONG HOMEMAKERS AT
KP.PARK ,CHENNAI-03.

M.Sc (NURSING) DEGREE EXAMINATION

BRANCH – IV COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSING

COLLEGE OF NURSING
MADRAS MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHENNAI – 03

A Dissertation submitted to

THE TAMILNADU DR M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,

CHENNAI – 600 032

In partial fulfillment of requirements for the award of degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NURSING

OCTOBER 2017

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that his dissertation titled “A STUDY TO

ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIDEO ASSISTED
TEACHING ON KNOWLEDGE REGARDING ILL EFFECTS OF
PLASTIC USAGE AMONG HOMEMAKERS AT KP.PARK,
CHENNAI” is a bonafide work done by NISHA.P, M.SC (NURSING)
II YEAR, College of Nursing, Madras Medical College, Chennai – 600
003, submitted to The Tamilnadu Dr M.G.R. Medical University,
Chennai – 32, partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of
Degree of Master of Science in Nursing, Branch – IV, Community
Health Nursing under our guidance and supervision during the
academic period 2015 – 2017

Dr.V.Kumari, M.Sc (N)., Ph.D., Dr.R.Narayanababu, MD, DCH.,

Principal, Dean,
College of Nursing, Madras Medical College,
Madras Medical College, Rajiv Gandhi Govt. General Hospital,
Chennai – 03. Chennai – 03.

2
 “A STUDY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIDEO
ASSISTED TEACHING ON KNOWLEDGE REGARDING ILL
EFFECTS OF PLASTIC USAGE AMONG HOMEMAKERS AT
KP.PARK ,CHENNAI”

Approved by the Dissertation Committee on 12.07.2016

Research Guide

Dr.V.KUMARI.,M.Sc (N).,Ph.D., _________________

Principal
College of Nursing, Madras Medical collge
Chennai – 03.

Clinical Specialty Guide

Mrs.L.SHANTHI.,M.Sc(N)., _________________
Reader, HOD
Department of Community Health Nursing
College of Nursing, Madras Medical College
Chennai – 03.

Medical Expert

Dr.JOY PATRICIA PUSHPARANI, M.D., _________________

Professor,
Institute of Community Medicine,
Madras Medical College, Chennai – 03.

A Dissertation submitted to

THE TAMILNADU DR M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,

CHENNAI – 600 032
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the award of degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NURSING

OCTOBER 2017
3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The power of god is with you at all times; through the activities of mind,
senses, breathing and emotions; and is constantly doing all the work using
you as a mere Instrument.”
– Bhagavad Gita
First of all I praise and thank my God for his abundant blessings &
graces all throughout my study. Great and mighty is our God, to whom all
thanks and praise for all wisdom, knowledge, guidance and strength
throughout this work.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to

Prof.Dr.R.NARAYANABABU, M.D, DCH, Dean, Madras Medical
College, and Chennai -03 for providing necessary facilities and
extending support to conduct this study.

I am more privileged to thanks DR.SUDHA SESHAYYAN

,MD.,Vice principal, Institutional Ethics committee, Madras Medical
college,Chennai-03 for expert guidance and encouragement of this study

I express my heartfelt thanks to Dr.V.KUMARI, M.Sc(N).,

Ph.D,. Principal, College of Nursing, Madras Medical college, Chennai
who tugs and pushes and leads me to the next plateau, sometimes
pocking me with a sharp stick called truth’s thank her for the perfect
direction and valuable guidance offered to complete this study.

I deem it a great privilege to express my sincere gratitude and

deep sense of indebtedness to my esteemed Madam Mrs.L.SHANTHI,
M.Sc (N)., Reader, HOD, College of Nursing, Madras Medical College,
Chennai –03. I thank her for patience, constant interest, guidance and
continuous support throughout this study.

4
 I thank Dr. JOY PATRICIA PUSHPARANI, M.D, Professor,
Institute of Community medicine, Madras Medical College, and Chennai
- for the support and assistance given by them according to their
possible manner to complete this study.

I wish to express my special heartfelt thanks and sincere gratitude

to Dr.N.P.SENTHILNATHAN.,MBBS.,DPH.Chennai for granting
permission to conduct the study in Selected Urban Health Centre.

I also express my sincere my gratitude to Miss B.Lingeshwari.,

M.Sc (N), Lecturer, and Mrs N.Sathayanarayanii.,M.Sc (N),
Lecturer,College of Nursing, Madras Medical College, Chennai for her
elegant decision and suggestion to conduct this study.

I wish to express my gratitude to all Lecturers and Faculty

Members of College of Nursing, Madras Medical College for their
valuable guidance in conducting this study.

I extend my thanks to Mr.Ravi., B.A, B.L.I.Sc., Librarian,

College of Nursing, Madras Medical College, Chennai – 03 for his co-
operation and assistance which built the sound knowledge for this study.

My heartfelt thanks to all Homemakers participating in this

study, s in K.P.Park, Chennai for the fullest co-operation.

Words are beyond expression for the meticulous support of my

beloved Husband Mr. K.Agilan and my son Master A.Sri Priyan., my
sister Ms.P.Poorni , my brother in law Mr. and Mrs. K.Kamaraj and
my affectionate brothers and sisters for their timely help and encourage
to complete this study.

5
 I render my deep sense of gratitude to My heartly thanks to my
beloved Mother Mrs.P.Gunasundari , my aunty Mrs. R.Velvizhi and
my family members for their immense love ,support, prayers and
encouragement that inspired me to reach this point in my life.

I express my deep sense of gratitude to my father

Mr.S.Punniyakotti (Late) for his Blessings and mercies which enable
me reach this step and complete my study without any inrerruptions.

Once again, I thank my God for his blessings, wisdoms and

direction. Finally, my whole hearted thanks and gratitude to one and all,
that helped me on my way to success.

6
 ABSTRACT
Title
“A study to assess the effectiveness of video assisted teaching on
knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among homemaker s at
Kp.park, Chennai”

The global environment is changing day by day and now it has

become challenge to living life forms due to very ugly fact that every
nation is trying to develop their countries without taking into
environmental impact of degradation. People are using plastic bag which
are environmentally dangerous products and harmful to health..

Need for the study

The impact of plastics in their numerous desirable properties made
diverse material properties of plastic such as resistance to chemicals and, ease
of shaping and molding, has contributed to the development of high-volume
manufacturing facilities enable of producing millions of tons of plastic products
per year. Plastic waste in India is about 4.5 million tons a year and It take 500-
1000 years to degrade.. In future, there is already a strong global movement to
ban plastic as it can cause damage, not just to the environment but also human
beings.

Objectives
 To assess the pretest and posttest level of knowledge regarding
ill effects of plastic usage among women homemakers at KP.Park.

 To determine the effectiveness of the video assisted teaching on

knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among
homemakers at KP.Park.

7
 To find out the association between post test knowledge level and
selected demographic variables on knowledge regarding ill effe cts
of plastic usage among homeworkers at KP.Park.

 Key Words: ill effects of plastics, video assisted teaching, Homemakers

Methodology
Research approach : Quantitative research approach

Study Design : Pre experimental one group pre-test

post-test design

Study setting : Urban area KP .Park, Chennai.

Study Duration : 4 Weeks (18.11.16 – 20.12.16)

Target population : The target population of the study were

homemakers in KP .Park, Chennai.

Accessible population : The accessible population of the study

were homemakers belongs to age group
20-50 years

Sample size : The sample consist of 100 homemakers

at urban area (K.P.Park) at Chennai.

Sampling technique : Non probability convienient sampling

technique

Data collection procedure

Formal permission was obtained from the city health officer. The
investigator selected 100 samples by non probability convenient
sampling technique. After obtaining informed and written consent
approximately 8-10 samples were selected everyday A pre-test was
conducted by using a structure questionnaire, followed by video

8
assisted teaching program to the participants regarding ill effects of
plastic usage. After 7 days post-test was conducted..

Data analysis
After the data collection the collected data was organized, tabulated,
summarized and analysed, The data was analysed according to objectives of the
study by descriptive statistics like Mean,Mode, Median,Standard deviation and
inferential statistics like chi-square and paired t -test.

Results
The finding of the study revealed that video had improved the
knowledge of homemakers regarding ill effects of plastic usa ge .Paired
t- test; P value is 0.005.There is statistical significance in knowledge
attainment on plastic shows effectiveness of the video assisted teaching.

Discussion
Hypothesis was proved by a statistical significance occurs in video
assisted teaching programme. The chi square test shows that there is
association between posttest knowledge and selected demographic variables.

Recommendations
 Comparative study may be conducted to find out the similarities
or differences between the knowledge and practices of urban and
rural people.

 Video Assisted Teaching programme on plastic use can be

compared with other teaching Strategies.

 A similar study can be done by using various teaching methods.

Conclusion
The result study shows that Video assisted teaching was effective in
improving the knowledge of homemakers on ill effects of plastic usage.

9
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page No

I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Need for the study 3
1.2 Statement of the Problem 5
1.3 Objectives 5
1.4 Operational Definition 5
1.5 Assumption 6
1.6 Hypothesis 6
1.7 Delimitations 6
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Review of literature related to study 7
2.2 Conceptual frame work 19
III METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research approach 22
3.2 Research design 22
3.3 Study setting 22
3.4 Study duration 23
3.5 Study population 23
3.6 Sample size 23
3.7 Sampling criterion 23
3.7.1 Inclusion criteria 23
3.7.2 Exclusion criteria 23
3.8 Sampling technique 23
3.9 Research variable 24
3.10 Development and Description of tool 24
3.10.1 Development of the tool 24
3.10.2 Description of the tool 24
3.10.3 Score interpretation 25
3.10.4 Intervention control 26
3.11 Ethical consideration 26
3.12 content validitity 26

10
Chapter Title Page No
3.13 Reliability of tool 26
3.14 Pilot Study 27
3.15 Data collection procedure 27
3.16 Data entry and analysis 28
IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 30
V SUMMARY 51
VI DISCUSSION 53
VII CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Implication of the study 56
7.2 Recommendations 58
7.3 Limitations 59
7.3 conclusion 59
REFERENCES
APPENDICES

11
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
Title
No No
3.1 Assessment of pretest and post test knowledge 22
3.2 Score interpretation of the structured questionnaire 25
3.3 Intervention protocol for homemakers. 26
4.1 Frequency distribution and % of study participants 31
according to their variable.
4.2 Domain wise percentage of pretest knowledge 36
score on ill effects of plastic usage among
homemakers
4.3 Pretest level of knowledge 37
4.4 Score interpretation 38
4.5 Domain wise percentage of posttest knowledge score 38
4.6 Posttest level Knowledge 39
4.7 Comparison of pretest and posttest mean knowledge 40
Score
4.8 Comparison of overall knowledge score 43
4.9 Effectiveness of video assisted teaching 44
4.10 Pretest and posttest knowledge percentage of 45
knowledge score
4.11 Association between pretest knowledge level and 47
demographic variable

12
 LIST OF FIGURES

Table
Title
No
2.1 Conceptual frame work – J.w Kenny’s open system model
3.1 Schematic presentation of research design
4.1 Age wise distribution of study participants
4.2 Education wise distribution of study participants
4.3 Family Type wise distribution of study participants
4.4 Family income distribution of study participants
4.5 Religion wise distribution of study participants
4.6. Method of waste disposal wise distribution of study
participants
4.7 Pretest level of knowledge among homemakers
4.8 Posttest level knowledge
4.9 Pretest and posttest knowledge score
4.10 Effectiveness of video assisted teaching
4.11 Pretest and posttest percentage of knowledgr score
4.12 Association between posttest level of knowledge and age
group
4.13 Association between posttest level of knowledge and
education status

13
 LIST OF APPENDICES

S. No Particulars
I Approval letter from Institutional Ethics committee
II Permission Letter from City Health Officer
III Certificate of Content Validity
IV Certificate of English Editing
V Certificate of Tamil Editing
VI Consent Form
English
Tamil
VII Tools for data collection
VIII Summary of planned teaching programme
1. English
2.Tamil
IX Video assisted Teaching

14
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Expansion
CI Confidence Interval
DF Degrees of freedom
Fig Figure
H1 and H2 Research hypothesis
M.Sc (N) Master of science in nursing
SD Standard deviation
VAT Video assisted teaching
χ2 Chi- Square test

15
 CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
“Collect All Plastic You Ever Use and Take It to Your Grave And
Let Future Generations to Understand the Meaning of Heaven’
– Anonymous

Plastics are used on a daily basis throughout the world. The global
environment is changing day by day and now it has become challenge to
living life forms due to very ugly fact that every nation is trying to
develop their countries without taking into environmental impact of
degradation. The word plastic is a common term that is used for many
materials of a synthetic or semi-synthetic nature 1 .

The term was derived from the Greek Plastikos, which means
“fit for molding.” "Plastics" derived their name from their properties to
be molded, cast, extruded or processed into a variety of forms, including
solid objects, films and filaments. These properties arise from their
molecular structure. Plastics are polymers, very long chain molecules
that consist of subunits (monomers) linked together by chemical bonds.
The monomers of petrochemical plastics are inorganic materials (such as
styrene) and are not biodegradable 1.

People are using plastic bag which are environmentally

dangerous products and harmful to health. They are mainly used for
their daily needs mainly for shopping purposes, and therefore
environment and agricultural lands are thereby being polluted 2 .

Plastics are a wide variety of combinations of properties when

viewed as a whole. They are used for shellac, cellulose, rubber, and
asphalt. We also synthetically manufacture items such as clothing,
packaging, automobiles, electronics, aircrafts, medical supplies, and
recreational items. The list could go on and on and it is obvious that

1
much of what we have today would not be possible without plastics. The
central government has recently passed a ruling under the provisions of the
Environment Protection Act 1986, restricting the sale of some products in plastic
carry bags. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has
banned the manufacture and use of plastic carry bags less than 8inches x 12
inches in size and 40 micron 7 in width. The ministry has also directed state
governments to register all plastic manufacturing 3 .

The Global Dimension

The Global production of 320 million ton of plastic is produced
world-wide in 2015 -2016,representing 4 percent increase over 2014
and by 2020 Global production would reach 375 billionof plastics
production (4) . Though plastics have opened the way for new inventions
and devices it has also ended up clogging the drains and becoming a
health hazard. Recovery and recycling remains insufficient and million
tons of plastics accumulate in land fill and ocean leads to hazards to
human being. Approximately22-43% of plastics disposed in landfill
and 10-20 million ton of plastics ends in ocean 4 .

While plastics are yet to be considered a significant disposal

problem in much of the first world (largely because these materials are
land filled--out of sight, out of mind), organizations in the global south
have demonstrated considerable concern in regards to the detrimental
effects of plastic products, notably the terminal waste generated by their
disposal. Direct disposal (littering or dumping) and incineration
(burning) of these wastes is a common practice in the global south. This
is harmful to the health of people and the environment. Because
dumping in rivers, streams and even urban drainage systems pollutes
water courses and causes flooding. When these waters are unsanitary,
they carry disease into the household 5 .

The burning of plastics encourages airborne pollution, the

majority of which is extremely toxic and can cause a host of health
2
problems (cancer, asthma, etc.). Although land filling and recycling
programs "vanish" the waste problem, each has considerably negative
consequences: landfills leak and often contaminate the ground water
with toxic liquids and residues. The recycling of plastic is often
accomplished by exporting waste materials to Asian countries where
recycling facilities are often likened to "sweatshops" where by laborers
prepaid little for dangerous work. The increased push for unfettered
trade and neo-liberal policy has scudded in intensifying these problems 2 .

1.1 Need for the Study

The impact of plastics in their numerous desirable properties
made diverse material properties of plastic such as resistance to
chemicals and, ease of shaping and molding, has contributed to the
development of high-volume manufacturing facilities enable of
producing millions of tons of plastic products per year. Plastic bags are
an environmental disaster; The per capita consumption of plastic in the
country stood at 6 kg now and is expected to go up to 12 kg by 2011, by
2012; India is also projected to be the third largest consumer market for
plastic goods with a consumption of 12.5 million tons per annum,
behind US and China 6 .

The negative externalities of significant proportions are created

by the difficulty of plastics recycling and the damaging decomposition
mechanisms, biodegradable plastics. The waste materials collected are
of all types including plastic materials, such as plastic bags, plastic
cups, plastic bottles etc. Instead of carrying these wastes away, they are
burnt on the road side polluting the area with thick smoke which
produce toxic gases (because of burning of plastic material) posi ng a
health hazard 7 .

3
 A study conducted by the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute for the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
refers that 5,500 metric tons MSW per day showed that plastic waste is
0.75 %.The rest is made up of organic materials (33%),paper and
paperboards (30%), glass and metals (16%) and others (13%) It has also
been observed that some of industries even recycle the plastic
waste/scrap which is totally unhygienic and, has health hazard for
persons house items made from such plastics and even used at times for
packaging of foodstuff 8 .

Current research indicates that backyard-burning of waste is far

more harmful to our health than previously thought. It can increase the
risk of heart disease, aggravate respiratory ailments such as asthma and
emphysema, and cause rashes, nausea, or headaches, damages in the
nervous system, kidney or liver, in the reproductive and development
system. The burning of polystyrene polymers -such as foam cups, meat
trays, egg containers, yogurt and deli containers -releases styrene.
Styrene gas can readily be absorbed through the skin and lungs..Long
term exposure to styrene can affect the central nervous system, causing
headaches, fatigue, weakness, and depression 9 .

Plastic waste in India is about 4.5 million tons a year and It take
500 – 1000 years to degrade.. In future, there is already a strong global
movement to ban plastic as it can cause damage, not just to the
environment but also human beings . The researcher felt that since
increase in the prevalence rate of ill effects of plastics use are more .
Homemakers are using plastics bags in houses and they can reduce use
of plastics by creating awareness to whole family. So the re searcher
conducted this research to assess the knowledge of homemakers about
the ill effects of plastics 10 .

4
1.2. Statement of the problem
A study to assess the effectiveness of video assisted Teaching on
knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among women
homemakers at KP.Park, in Chennai.”

1.3. Objectives of the study

 To assess the pretest and posttest level of knowledge regarding ill
effects of plastic usage among women homemakers at KP.Park.

 To determine the effectiveness of the video assisted teaching on

knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among
homemakers at KP.Park.

 To find out the association between post test knowledge level and
selected demographic variables on knowledge regarding ill effe cts
of plastic usage among homeworkers at KP.Park.

1.4. Operational definitions

1) Assess refers to measuring the knowledge of home maker
regarding ill effects of plastic usage.

2) Effectiveness refers to the knowledge gain after the Video

assisted teaching on ill -effects of plastic usage among
homemakers at KP.Park.

3) Ill effects of plastics refers to the hazardous effects over the

health because of the usage of plastics in daily life.

4) Knowledge refers to the awareness and response on ill effects of

the plastic usage measured in terms of structured knowledge
questionnaire.

5) Video assisted teaching is series of visual information given

through video regarding the ill effects of plastics

5
6) Homemakers A woman who manages her own household as her
main occupation between the age group of 20-50years

1.5. Assumptions
 Home makers in community may have inadequate knowledge ill
effects of plastic usage.

 Video assisted teaching may improve the knowledge regarding ill

effects of plastic usage among home makers.

 Structured knowledge questions will be able to answer a s gain

knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage.

1.5. Hypothesis
 H1-There will be a significant difference between the pre-test and
post-Test level of knowledge, regarding ill effects of plastics
usage on Health among women homemakers at KP.Park.

 H2- There will be a significant association between the post-test

Knowledge and selected demographic variables of homemakers.

1.6. Delimitations
 The study is delimited to the urban area KP.Park,Choolai.

 The study is delimited to the 100 samples.

 The study is period delimited to 4 weeks

6
 CHAPTER-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature in a research report is a summary of
current knowledge about a particular problem and includes what is
known and not known about the problem. The literature is reviewe d to
summarize knowledge for use in practice or to provide a basis for
conducting a study. This chapter is divided into two parts

2.1.Part-I: Review of Literature Related to Study

2.2 PART-II: Conceptual framework

2.1 Part-I: Review of literature related to study

2.1.1 Environmental hazards due to plastics

2.1.2 Health issues due to plastics

2.1.3 Literature related to plastic waste management.

2.1.4 Literature related to Use of alternatives for plastic use:

2.1.5Video Assisted Teaching

2.1.1 Environmental hazards due to plastics

Hammani M.B.A,et al., (2017) conducted a cross section study

,survey awareness and attitude of secondary school regarding plastic
pollution ,implication for environment among 400 students 6 different
secondary schools. Majority of the population understand how plastic
waste environment (85.5%) .Student mean knowledge score was 53%
with female (P=0.01) and student whose mother were more educated (P=
0.014) being more knowledgeable. They recommended to assure
governmental support along with environment are needed to bridge the
information gap. There is association between age and knowledge of
mothers 11 .
7
 Lither D, Larson ,et al., (2011) Conducted a cross sectional study
on environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plast ic
polymers based on chemical composition. Plastics constitute a large
material group with a global annual production that has doubled in 15
years (245 million tons in 2008). The knowledge of human and
environmental hazards and risks from chemicals associated with the
diversity of plastic products is very limited. study has identified
hazardous substances used in polymer production for which the risks
should be evaluated for decisions on the need for risk reduction
measures, substitution, or even phase out 12 .

Legesse Adane and Diriba Muleta., (2011) conducted a study to

educate the public serious environmental pollution and health problems
due to plastic products. The objective of this survey was to assess usage
of plastic bags and their environmental impacts in . A semi-structured
questionnaire was used to collect data from 230 randomly selected
respondents. The results indicated that the larger proportion (176,
76.52%) of the respondents used plastic bags more frequently than any
other plastic products. The findings of the present study also indicated
that the trend of utilization of plastic bags was Decreased and deal of
awareness has improved knowledge of the residents about the ad verse
effects of these products 13 .

Amaral, Kimberly., (2010) conducted a research “Plastics in Our

Oceans” reported that when plastics reach the rivers, seas and oceans,
they pose a serious threat to marine animals like sea turtles, seabirds and
fish. The marine animals mistaking them to be authentic food consume
plastic objects and pellets; they can clog their intestines leading to death
out of starvation or malnutrition. This discomforting effect of plastics
on marine life came to fore in the late 1970s when scientists from the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory concluded that plastic
entanglement was killing up to 40,000 seals a year 14 .

8
 Gray, Hill, Feet., (2009) conducted a descriptive study work in
use of random plastic bags for shopping purpose and its eventual
riddance into the dust bins. This paper proposes a timely lega l
intervention by the respective governments of different countries to stop
the production and the dominant use of plastic bags. It also proposes
that the plastic bags which have already been manufactured and burnt to
reduce its damaging impact on agricultural growth because of its non-
biodegradable and toxic properties and harmful effects. However, we
need to encourage the usage of alternatives to plastic bag, such a s, jute
bags and paper bags etc 15 .

Rhian Tough, (2007) conducted a comparative approach to

investigate the environmental impacts of plastic shopping bags and
consumption patterns, in relation..The mixed comparative approach
used in this research was a combination of the philosophies underlying
cost benefit analysis, case studies and policy ana lysis. However, due to
strong public pressure for government intervention, and potential
implications for future climate change and sustainability initiatives 16 .

Yuan-Tien Su., (2006) conducted a comparative study between

environmental hazards due to plastic uses and respiratory health in
young children in Dec 2006 the study period covered 11 years (1996 -
2006).640 documents were recovered from the United States accounted
for 23.5% of articles. The factor most widely studied was air pollution
the outdoor air pollution is (50%) and then indoor air pollution is (40%)
predominated in children 3 years of age the study concluded
environmental hazards is fundamental in the management and
prevention of respiratory problems in childhood 17 .

Girum Bahri., (2005)conducted a study on environmental impacts

of plastic bag waste .The need for such a study was justified as it was
desirable to change the unsustainable pattern of consumption and

9
production associated with these materials. Plastic bag waste appears in
very high proportion in the municipal solid waste stream in and was
causing environmental problems.The results indicated that the problem
was a consequence of externalities in production and consumption;
ineffective by-laws on littering and illegal dumping; failure of garbage
collection and disposal systems; and low public awareness and poor life-
cycle considerations 18 .

Thiel, et al., (2003) conducted a cross sectional study disposed

plastic bags have now found their way to everywhere including the
remote areas. It is very unfortunate that although the plastic bags have
been seen to have reduced the agricultural production worldwide, there
has been no significant lobbying to undertake a proper, effective and
concrete proactive action and no scientific serious invest igation has
been made by the international organizations and international
community to reduce the ever increasing consumption of the plastic
bags 19 .

Karliner, et al., (1997) conducted a cross sectional study

damaging impacts of plastic bags on the environment and agriculture
and its consumption pattern implicated therein. The research also looks
for developing plastic bag alternatives, such as, jute bags, paper bags,
etc., which are convenient for shopping purposes as well as not costly
and above all not environmentally damaging. are able to supply
adequate quantity of raw jutes to produce alternative jute bags. Hence,
these countries are in a much better position to lobby for the much
sought global alternatives of plastic bags 20 .

2.1.2 Health issues due to plastic

Linc. C.Y,et al., (2015) conducted a cross sectional study to find

association between level of serum bisphenolA, potentially harmful
chemical plastic container cause cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis)

10
in adolescent and young adults and to detect the relationship between
serum level of bisphenol A, Mean SD of bisphenol A is 1.72 .After
controlling the confounding factors Linear regression analysis show
bisphenol sA has significantly associated with cardiovascular disease
(atherosclerosis) P= 0.001 .High serum of concentration of bisphenolA
were associated with increased cardiovascular disease among adolescent
and adult 21 .

Wang J, Li.L, Lu.Y., (2014) conducted a cross sectional survey to

investigate main influence factors affect health of children in plastic
recycling among 9-17 years using questionnaire .by random household.
The result is increased rate of respiratory symptoms (cough, nasal,
congestion, and sore throat(78.4%) and digestive disease (14.8%) and in
the waste processing area were significantly higher than those in the
control area p=0.05 is analyzed 22.

Nithin Joseph., (2013) conducted a cross sectional study in

Mangalore and objective is to find out the awareness of health hazards
associated with usage of plastics bags The results states that Mean age
of 250 participants was 32-10.8 years. Awareness was significantly
more among females P=0.027 .Among participants 216 (86.4%) P=
0.006 aware of health hazards in plastic bags awareness has improved
knowledge of usage of plastics bags 23 .

Heleal.SF, Elshafy.WS.,(2013) conducted a cross sectional study

to detect the health effect styrene exposure among same group and
compared with unexposed healthy individuals by laboratory
investigations. The exposed group is 40 male workers and contr ol group
is 50 unexposed individuals .Mean (23.40 - 0.45).The study show that
statistically different between exposed and control group regarding the
blood styrene level. They recommended premedical examination and
health education 24 .

11
 Calafat. AM ,et al.,(2012) conducted a study to assess the
exposure to Biphenyl plastic used iin plastic manufacture affect health
measured by urinary concentration .Bisphenol = 92.6% mean is
significantly lower in (P= 0.000) and were not statistically different
(P=0.21) .Female had statistically higher than male (P= 0.043)
.Children had higher concentration than adolescent, Biphenyl is
different from race ,age and income 25 .

Brophy JT, Keith, MM.,(2012) conducted a study to find

mortality pattern among workers exposed to styrene in the reinforced
plastic dot building industry revealed over all,860 deaths (standardized
mortality ration (SMR)1.09, confidence interval 1.02-1.17). The excess
mortality was accounted for esophageal cancer (n=12, smr 2.30, cl -1.19-
4.02), and prostate cancer (n=24.SMR-1.71, CL-1.09-2.54) Accidents
(N=94 smrl.26, CL 1.02-1.53). Among 2.062 highly exposed workers
urinary tract cancer increased with duration of employment 26 .

D Mello, Pamela.c., (2012) conducted a descriptive study on

inefficient way of waste management causes severe health problem. It
has been observed that due to an inefficient and faulty waste collection
and transit system, a large amount of plastic waste fails to reach
landfills or incinerators. Instead they are left behind to find the ir way
into the soil, the sewage system and the water bodies. They choke the
gutters and drains and during the monsoons flood streets causing severe
health problems 27 .

Mastrangelo G, et al., (2011) conducted a nested case-referent

study and the aim of the study was conducted to determine whether PVC
and/or vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is the associated risk factor(s), in
order to estimate lung cancer risk. The risk of lung cancer was estimated
by odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), calculated
using logistic regression models. The result shows that in PVC baggers

12
exposed to high levels of respirable PVC particles in the workplace, the
lung cancer OR increases by 20% for each extra year of work (OR =
1.2003; 95% CI 1.0772 to 1.3469; p = 0.0010), when the influence of
age and smoking habits is controlled. By this result, researcher
concluded that in the VCM/PVC industry, an increased risk of lung
cancer associated with exposure to PVC dust 28 .

Rofl U, Halden., (2010)conducted a descriptive study on

worldwide annual production of plastics will surpass 300 million tons.
Plastics are indispensable materials in modern society, and many
products manufactured from plastics are a boon to public health (egg.,
disposable syringes, intravenous bags). However, plastics also pose
health risks. Of principal concern are endocrine-disrupting properties, as
triggered for example by biphenyl A and di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .
This literature review summarizes information from more than 120 peer -
reviewed publications on health effects of plastics and plasticizers in lab
animals and humans 29 .

Cathy Ryan, (2007) conducted a prospective cohort study by the

national cancer institute (NCI) in 2007, includes 25,691 male and female
workers enrolled from 10 different formaldehyde producing or using
plants. The result were increased risk of sino nasal cancers were
observed among male 2.3 (95%), 13 exposed causes and female 2.4
(95%), 4 exposed cases and 3 deaths one death from squamous cell
sinonasal cancer and concluded no increase in risk was found among
formaldehyde exposed workers. and reviewed 130 studies on the topic
plastic and health hazards, Besophenol-A has been linked to breast and
uterine cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased
testosterone levels 30 .

13
 HanaokaT,et al., (2006) conducted a cross sectional study and
objective is to assess the occupational exposure to high level of plastic
phthalate and polyvinyl chloride leads to decreased serum testosterone
.The result is compared to unexposed workers and exposed workers has
significantly decreased testosterone level P= 0.019 .Regression analyses
shows decreases significantly and negatively correlated r= -0.19 .he
observed significant reduction of serum testosterone in workers in high
exposure to plastic phthalate 31 .

Swan. SH, et al., (2005) conducted a study to assess phthalate

exposure impair testicular function. A standard measure significantly
co-related with testicular impairment P= 0.02 .The association between
male genital exposure and phthalate score (P= 0.001).The study
analyzed by urinary concentration and support hypothesis that prenatal
phthalate exposure adversely affect male reproductive developme nt
.The median concentration phthalate metabolism associated with
testicular impairment 32 .

Lovekamp-swm T,Davis .BJ., (2003) conducted a study to find

extraction of diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) from total protein nutrient
(TPN) solution polyvinyl chloride bags showed a range 0.39/ml
(depending on lipid concentration and storage condition) of DEHP
(content of plastic) leaking from TPN is smaller than DEHP, leaking
from PVC tubing during hemodialysis. DEHP toxicity in human reaches
from blood transfusion and leads to pulmonary insufficient and
pulmonary edema 33 .

2.1.3. Plastic waste management

Avfar Sverige (2015) conducted astudy in Swedish Waste

Management Annual Publication of RVF reported that the final stage in
the life cycle of plastics is disposal. In India, there are three common
ways of getting rid of plastics; by dumping them in landfills, by burning

14
them in incinerators or by littering them. In the case of littering, plastic
wastes fail to reach landfills or incinerators. It is the improper way of
disposing plastics and is identified as the cause of manifold ecological
problems. Incineration is a process in which plastic and other wastes are
burnt and the energy produced, as a result, is tapped 34 .

Dr.Parveshbhawan (2012) conducted a study on Guidelines for

recycling of plastics by the National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (NEERI) for the Brihan Mumbai Municipal
Corporation, which handles more than 5,500 metric tons MSW per day
shows that plastic waste is 0.75 %. The rest is made up of organic
materials (33%), paper and paperboards (30%), glass and metals (16%)
and others (13%).The methods of recycling and the technology used for
the same at present are quite outmoded and are in need of up gradation 35.

Aline Marques Rolim, Luis Felip,Nascimento., (2010) conducted

a descriptive study on post-consumer plastic recycling technological The
cases being studied were post-consumer plastic recycling companies and
companies that manufacture end-use products from recycled plastics.
This article describes their recycling technology and some market
aspects. They have suggested on their study that post- consumer plastic
recycling can be sustainable development tool which help to solve the
problems of solid waste. “Postconsumer recycling was a technol ogical
trend that recovers the economic value from objects discarded by
consumers (e.g. bottles and packaging) 36 .

J .N Fobil , J. N Hogarh., (2009) conducted a study, they have

suggested the producer of the plastic, the consumer of the plastic and
appropriate authorities responsible for plastic waste management. they
were locally recycled into coal-pots, metallic cooking pots and many
other useful metallic equipment or utensils. Bottles were also limited in
the waste stream because they were picked up and resold mostly for

15
reuse. It was, therefore, envisaged that if market value could be created
in plastic waste, scavengers would start picking them as well. It was
concluded that itinerant waste buyers would start moving from house to
house to buy plastic waste .37

Rann PM, HILL., (2005) conducted a study on plastic waste

management in India, 60% of the plastic-waste collected and segregated
gets recycled back into materials for further processing into consumer
products, while the balance is left unutilized and new perspectives
in plastic biodegradation, recycling has practically failed to provide a
safe solution for disposal of plastic waste (only 5% out of 1
trillion plastic bags, annually produced are being recycled). Since the
most utilized plastic is polyethylene (PE; ca. 140 million tons/year), any
reduction in the accumulation of PE waste alone would have a major
impact on the overall reduction of the plastic waste in the environment 38 .

Reiss.A., (2005) conducted a descriptive study at 62 Zehrs

shopping centre at Ontario to assess the knowledge of people of all
groups regarding reuse of plastic bags .It is evident that majority of
people knowledge using reusable bags. Hence efforts made to decrease
or eliminate the behavior .and have to encourage the pu blic foe using
reusable bags. the study reveal that 100 subjects 64 % had poor
knowledge and 36% had average knowledge .post test revealed 34% of
good knowledge 18% with excellence knowledg 39 .

Mercer. A, et al., (2005) conducted a descriptive study plastic

waste management and recycling .The study revealed that plastic
represent 7-8% of the residential waste stream .plastic packaging
represents 31% of total plastics, recycle flim at 19% .polyethylene
bottles are collected from 91% of house hold recycle de vice. other
plastics such as wide mouth tube polystyrene are collected from 1.3
million of house hold .Hence the investigator concluded that the plastics

16
from municipal commercial and industrial resources are managed by
recycling program 40 .

Shah, Priya., (2001) conducted a study “The Plastic Devil:

Ecological Menace” that, the rate of recycling in India is extremely
high. About 40 percent of the total plastics manufactured are sorted,
collected and recycled as opposed to only 10-15 percent in developed
countries. Of the types of plastics recycled in India, PVC
(polyvinylchloride) accounts for 45 percent, LDPE (low density
polyethylene) for 25 percent, HDPE (high density polyethylene) for 20
percent, PP (polypropylene) for 7.6 percent and other polymers such as
PS (polystyrene) for 2.4 percent. According to manufacturers, almost all
these types of waste can be recycled up to four or five times. However,
the quality of the recyclate deteriorates as additives and virgin material
are added to give it strength 41 .

2.1.4. Use of alternatives for plastic use

Amrutha Pretty (2014) conducted a study in An article by Times

of India, October, reported that The Delhi High Court tightened norms
for regulating use and recycling of plastic bags in the Capital to check
their indiscriminate use as they pose a serious health hazard and pollute
the environment. They stated that 100-room hotels, 100-bed hospitals,
shopping malls, liquor shops and 50-seat restaurants and milk booths
can use biodegradable bags and the other establishments can use non-
biodegradable and recycled plastic bags. It also mentioned that there
42
will be big fines on those who are against to the law .

Dr.Kemp (2008) conducted a descriptive study Directorate of

Department of Environment and Heritage, stated that a growing list of
communities and countries are beginning to think their dependence on
plastic bags. Already a complete or partial ban on the bags has been
approved in many countries like Australia, South Africa, Europe, China,

17
Italy, Bangladesh, and parts of India like Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram,
Pondicherry, GOA, Tripura, Delhi, Kanyakumari, Jaipur, Ahmadabad,
and Punjab 43 .

2.1.4Video Assisted Teaching

Sheetal udaykar, Markarand Udayka,. (2015) conducted a quasi

experimental study to assess the knowledge on swine flu among
students. The result is Average knowledge (13-22) and their frequency is
31 where 9 samples belong to good knowledge .The post mean score of
video assisted teaching programme 26.13 was higher than the pretest
mean score 13,the paired t test value 14.591.so video assisted teaching
was highly knowledge in increasing the knowledge regarding prevention
44.
of swine flu

Pushpakala K.J, Abraham Chako (2015) conducted a study to

assess the effectiveness of video assisted teaching on knowle dge
regarding plastic hazards .The results shows that mean posttest score
8.50 was higher than mean pretest score .There is significant association
with posttest score at 0.01 level and moderately positive co relation
between Knowledge and demographic variable. so video assisted
teaching was highly knowledge in increasing the knowledge regarding
45.
impact of plastic usage

Pushpamala Ramaiah, A A Noor siah,.(2015) conducted a study

to assess the effectiveness of video assisted teaching regarding
obstetrics emergencies among nursing students. The results states that
pretest score regarding management of obstetrics emergencies is 36.38
with SD of 5.52.The pretest score regarding management of obstetrics
emergencies is 87.16 with SD of 3.81There is significant association
between the posttest knowledge score and demographic variables 46.

18
 PART – II

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The present study is based on the concept of J.W. Kenny‟s open

system model(1990) .According to J.W. Kenny‟s all living system are
open, they are in a continuous exchange of matter, energy and
information ,which results in varying degree of interaction with the
environment from which the system receives input and gives output in
the form of matter, energy and information.

Input
Input can be matter, energy and information from the environment
.In the present study the environment refers to community set up
(K.P.Park) and input refers to the collection of demographic data from
samples and assessing the level of knowledge on ill effects of plastic s
usage among homemakers by using questionnaire.

Throughput
The matter, energy and information are continuously processed
through the system which is also called complex transformation ,known
as throughput process is used for input (ie) energy and informat ion for
the maintenance of homeostasis of the system .In the present study it
refers to video assisted teaching regarding ill effects of plastic usage
among homemakers.

Output
After processing the input and throughout ,the system returns to
the output matter ,energy and information to the environment in an
altered state .change in feature of the process that is observable and
measurable as output ,which should be different from that which is
entered into the system .In this present study gain in level of k nowledge

19
regarding ill effects of plastic usage among homemakers is considered
as output and measured by posttest.

Feedback
Feedback gives information of environmental responses to the
system ,output is utilized by the system in adjustment ,correction and
accommodation to the interaction with the environment .In this study It
refers to analysis of the posttest.

20
 Input Throughput Output

Adequate
knowledge
DEMOGRAPHIC
P
VARIABLE PRETEST Increased
Video O
 Age Asses the Process of
assisted S level of
 Education knowledge transformation
Inadequate
 Religion teaching
T knowledge knowledge
of on ill of
 Family homemaker T regarding
effects of information
income s regarding E ill effects
plastic
 Method of ill effects of of plastic
waste usage S
plastics T usage
disposal

FEEDEBACK

Fig-2.1: Conceptual framework based on J. W. Kenny’s Open System Model (1990)

21
 CHAPTER-III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals Methodology to” assess the effectiveness of
video assisted teaching on knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic
usage among home makers”.

3.1. Research approach

The research approach adopted for this study is a quantitative
approach.

3.2Research design
The research design selected for the present study was pre
experimental one group pretest post test design. The design may
dramatically represent as below.

Table 3.1Assessment of pretest and post test knowledge

Group Pretest Intervention Posttest

Pre experimental group O1 X O2

Table 3.1 showsAssessment of pretest and post test knowledge

O 1= pretest assessment of knowledge of group

X = Administration of Video Assisted Teaching on the ill effects

of plastics usage among homemakers.

O 2 = Post test to evaluate the level of knowledge about the ill

effects of plastics usage among homemakers.

3.3 Study setting

Urban area KP .Park, Chennai.

22
3.4. Study Duration
4 Weeks (18.11.16 – 21.12.16)

3.5 Study population

3.5.1 Target population : The target population of the study were
homemakers in KP .Park, Chennai.

3.5.2 Accessible population: The accessible population of the

study were homemakers belongs to age group 20-40 years who are

3.6 Sample size

The sample consist of 100 homemakers at urban area (K.P.Park)
at Chennai.

3.7 Sampling criterion

3.7.1 Inclusion criteria

1) The homemakers who are residing in K.P.Park..

2) The homemakers who are belong to age group 20-50 years.

3) The homemakers who are able to understand Tamil and or English

3.7.2 Exclusion criteria

1) The homemakers who are not willing to participate.

2) The homemakers who are not available at the time of data

collection.

3.8 Sampling technique

Non probability convenient sampling technique

23
3.9 Research variable
Independent Variables – It refers to Video assisted teaching
improving knowledge regarding ill effects of plastics usage among
homemakers.

Dependent Variable – It refers to Knowledge of homemakers

residing at K.P.Park, chennai.

3.10 Development and description of tool

3.10.1 Development Of The Tool

Appropriate structured Questionnaire tool has been developed

after extensive review of literature and obtained opinion, content
validity from medical , Nursing expert and statistical experts.
Construction and presenting of tool was done during pilot study. Direct
assessment of study participants was performed during data collec tion.

3.10.2 Description of the Tool

The structured questionnaire has two sections I and II

Section I- Demographic data of home makers which include age,

education, religion, Monthly family income and method of waste
disposal.

Section II - Structured Questionnaire. It consists of 20 structured

questionnaires to assess the knowledge on ill effects of plastics usage.
Each correct answer was given a score of one (1) and wrong answer was
scored as zero (0). The total scores were 20.

Subsections are

1) Plastic

2) Plastic types

3) Ill effects of plastic on environment

24
4) Ill effects of plastic on animals

5) Ill effects of plastic on human

6) Measures for reduction of plastics.

3.10.3 Score Interpretation

A structured questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge of

homemakers regarding ill effects of plastic usage. It consists 20 multiple
choice questions with 6 subdivisions.

Table-3.2 Score interpretation of the structured questionnaire

S. No Knowledge Aspects Total No. of items Score

1. Plastic 4 4
2. Plastic types 2 2
3. Ill effects of plastic on environment 5 5
4. Ill effects of plastic on animals 2 2
5. Ill effects of plastic on human 5 5
6 Measures for reduction of plastics 2 2

Total 20 20

The score is given as follows

 For correct answer - 1

 For wrong answer - 2

Based on the score the level of knowledge on ill effects of plastic

usage among homemakers interpreted as follows

 Inadequate Knowledge - <50%

 Moderate adequate knowledge - 51-75%

 adequate knowledge - 76- 100 %

25
3.10.4 Intervention Protocol

Table-3.3 Intervention protocol for homemakers.

Sl. No. Protocol Pre Experimental Group

1. Place Sample home
2. Intervention Video assisted teaching
3. Duration 4 weeks
4. Frequency Morning / evening
5. Time 20 min
6. Administrator Investigator

3.11 Ethical considerations

The study was proposed and submitted to the ethics committee, Madras
Medical College and the committee approved the study. All respondents were
carefully informed about the purpose of the study and their part during the
study. Informed consent for the study was obtained from all participants.
Confidentiality of the subject‟s information was maintained. Thus the
investigator followed the ethical guidelines, which were issued by the research
committee. Necessary permission to conduct the study was requested and
obtained from the City Health Officer of Chennai Corporation, Department
head of Community Health nursing, college of nursing, Madras Medical
College. The study was done without any violation of human rights.

3.12.Content validity
Content validity of the tool was assessed by obtaining an opinion in the
field of community medicine, community health nursing and statistical experts.
The experts were an Associate professor and Reader respectively. There was
uniform agreement to the tool adopted for conducting the study. Hence, the
investigator proceeds with the same tool.

3.13. Reliability of the tool

After pilot study reliability of the tool was assessed by using Test retest
method. The knowledge score reliability correlation coefficient „r‟ value was

26
0.83. This correlation is very high and it is good tool for assessing the
effectiveness of video assisted teaching about ill effects of plastic usage among
the homemakers residing at selected urban area, K.P.Park

3.14. Pilot Study

The pilot study is a trial run for the main study to test thee
reliability, practicability, appropriateness and flexibility of the tool for
the study. A formal permission to conduct the study in the K.P.Park.
Community area, Chennai was obtained from City Health officer of
Chennai corporation. A pilot study was done for a period of 6 days.
Samples were selected from K.P.Park. area. The purpose of the study
was informed to the samples. Confidentiality of the information was
assured. The consent was obtained from the samples. Samples were
selected using Non probability convenient Sampling technique.
Pretest,video assisted conducted and after that posttest was conducted.
Analysis of the finding showed high consistency and feasibility of the
study and after which the plan for the actual study was made. I excluded
these samples in main study.

3.15. Data collection procedure

The data collection procedure for the study is as follows:

 Permission has obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee,

Formal permission was obtained from the City Health Officer,
Corporation of Chennai.

 Samples were drawn using Non probability, Convenient Sampling

Technique, during the 1 st visit, the researcher introduced herself
and explained the purpose of the study and confirmed the
willingness of the homemakers to participate in the study by
getting consent from them as per the inclusion criteria. I assured
that confidentiality is maintained

27
 Data collection procedure was done for a period of four weeks and
the time taken for each subject was 10-15 minutes. Pre assessment
was done using structured questionnaire, Subsequently Video
Assisted Teaching was given on same day for 20 minutes. In
between study subjects doubts were clarified.

 On the seventh day post assessment was conducted using same

structured questionnaire.

 Based on the criteria 8-10 subjects were selected each day. The
subjects were assured of confidentiality of data collected.

3.16 Data Entry and Analysis

Data Entry: Entered the data in the excel sheet and coding the
data

Analysis: Collected data were analyzed by using descriptive and

inferential statistics.

1. Descriptive analysis

 Frequency and percentage analysis were used to describe

demographic characteristic of homemakers.

 Range, Mean and standard deviation were used to assess the

knowledge of homemakers.

2. Inferential analysis

 Paired t-test were used to test to compare the pre-test and post-
test knowledge.

 Chi-square analysis were used to find out the association between

the pre-test knowledge scores and demographic variable.

 P value 0.05 and < 0.05 was considered statistically significant

28
Fig-3.1: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE STUDY

Research Design
Pre-Experimental One group Pretest-Post test design

Study setting – Urban Area ,K.P.Park

Target population – Homemakers residing at K.P.Park

Sampling technique
Non-Probability Convenient Sampling

Sample size – 100 Homemakers

Description of the tool

Demographic data, structured questionnaire

Pretest Assessment of knowledge on ill effects of plastic

usage

Plan of intervention- Video assisted teaching on ill effects of

plastic usage

Post test knowledge

Data analysis-Descriptive and Inferential Statistics

Findings and Conclusion

29
 CHAPTER – IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the study
were based on the data collected through structures multiple choice
question to assess the knowledge regarding ill effects of plastics usage.

The collected data were tabulated and presented according to the

objectives under the following headings.

Organization of data
Section–A : Distribution of Demographic variables of study
participants.

Section – B : Pretest level of knowledge among homemakers

regarding ill effects of plastic usage

Section – C : Post test level of knowledge among homemakers

regarding ill effects of plastic usage

Section – D : Comparison of pretest and posttest level of

knowledges

Section - E : Effectiveness of Video Assisted treaching.

Section – F : Association of post test knowledge with selected

demographic variables of homemakers.

30
Section – A: Distribution of Demographic variables of study
participants.
TABLE 4.1: Frequency distribution and % of study participa nts
according to their variable n = 100

No. of house
Demographic variables %
wives
Age 20-30 yrs 41 41.0%
31-40 yrs 43 43.0%
41-50 yrs 16 16.0%
Educational Status Noformaleducation 20 20.0%
1-12th std 55 55.0%
Graduate 25 25.0%
Family Nuclear Family 70 70.0%
Joint Family 30 30.0%
Family Income Per Rs.1000 – 10000 48 48.0%
Month Rs.10000 – 20000 49 49.0%
>Rs.20000 3 3.0%
Religion Hindu 61 61.0%
Christian 37 37.0%
Muslim 2 2.0%
Method of waste Open land 23 23.0%
disposal Dustbin 10 10.0%
Burning 67 67.0%

 The above table reveals that age of study group of 16% of

homemakers were in the age group of 41-50 yrs, 43% of
homemakers were in the age group of 31-40 yrs and 41% of
homemakers were in the age group of 20-30 yrs.

 Educational status of the study group reveals that 25% of

homemakers had education up to degree, 55 % had education up
to 1-12 th std and 20% of homemakers are No formal education..

31
 Type of family of the study group reveals that 30% of them are in
joint family and 70% of them are in nuclear family.

 Monthly income of study group reveal that 48% of homemakers

were in Rs.1000-10000 income, 49% were Rs.10000-20000
income and 3% of homemakers were >Rs.20000.

 Religion most of the study group (ie). 61% of them were

Hindus,37% were Christian and 2% of them were other type of
religion

 Method of waste disposal of study group illustrate that 23% were

using open land,10% were using dustbin and 67% were burning
the waste.

32
 Fig – 4.1: Age wise distribution of study participants

Fig-4.2: Education wise distribution of study participants

33
Fig- 4.3:Types of family wise distribution of study participants

Fig-4.4 Family income wise distribution of study participants

34
 Fig-4.5Religion wise distribution of study participants

Fig-4.6 Method of waste disposal wise distribution of study

participants

35
Section -B- Pretest knowledge among homemakers regarding ill
effects of plastics usage
Table-4.2: Domain wise percentage of pretest knowledge score on ill
effects of plastic usage among homemakers

Min- Pretest score

Ill effects of No. of
Knowledge On Max Mean
plastic usage questions
score score SD %

General aspects Plastic 4 0-4 1.9 0.7 47.5%

onill effects
of plastic usage Plastic types 2 0-2 0.6 0.4 30%

Environment 5 0-5 2.1 0.8 42%

Other ill effects Animals 2 0-2 0.6 0.5 30%
of plastic usage
Human 5 0-5 2.2 1.1 44%
Measures
forReduction 2 0-2 1.0 0.5 50%
of plastics
Total 20 0-20 8.5 4.0 42..5%

Table 4.2 shows domain wise percentage of pretest knowledge

score on ill effects of plastic usage among homemakers. In pret est they
having more knowledge in a Reduction to plastics( 65%) and minimum
knowledge in in effects of plastic on environment(30%),over all they
gain 42.5 % of knowledge score.

36
Table-4.3: Pretest Level of Knowledge

Knowledge Level No of homemakers %

Inadequate (0 - 9) 70 70.0%
Moderate(10-14) 30 30.0%
Adequate (15-20) 0 0
Total 100 100%

Table 4.3 shows the pretest knowledge about the ill effects of
plastics usage among the homemakers.In pretest 70% of the homemakers
are having low level of knowledge and 30 % of them are having
moderate knowledge and 0% of them having adequate knowledge.

Fig-4.7:Pretest level of knowledge among homemakers

37
Table 4.4: Score Interpretation

Knowledge Level Percentage

Inadequate (0 - 9) <50%
Moderate(10 - 14) 51-75%
Adequate(120 - 9) 76- 100

This table shows the score interpretation used to assess the level
of knowledge among the homemakers who were participating in the
study.

Section –C: Post test level of knowledge among homemakers

regarding ill effects of plastics usage.
Table-4.5: Domain wise percentage of posttest knowledge score

Min- Posttest score

Ill effects of No. of
Knowledge On Max Mean
plastic usage questions
score score SD %

General aspects Plastic 4 0-4 3.8 0.5 95%

onill effects
Plastic types 2 0-2 1.8 0.5 90%
of plastic usage
Other ill effects Environment 5 0-5 4.3 0.7 86%
of plastic usage
Animals 2 0-2 1.6 0.5 80%
Human 5 0-5 4.6 0.6 92%
Measures
forReduction 2 0-2 2.0 0.2 100%
of plastics
Total 20 0-20 18.1 3.0 90.5%

Table 4.5 shows domain wise percentage of pretest knowledge

score on ill effects of plastic usage among homemakers. In pretest they
having more knowledge in a Reduction to plastics ( 100%) and
minimum knowledge in ill effects of plastic on animals (80%),over all
they gain 90.5 % of knowlsedge score.

38
Table-4.6: Posttest Level of Knowledge

Knowledge Level No %
Inadequate (0 - 9) O 0.0%
Moderate(10-14) 2 2.0%
Adequate (15-20) 98 98.0%
Total 100 100%

Table 4.6 shows the post test knowledge about the ill effects of
plastics usage among homemakers.In posttest none of the homemakers
are having inadequate knowledge ,2% of them are having moderate
knowledge and 98% of them are having adequate knowledge.

Fig-4.8 :Posttest level of knowledge

39
Section – D: Comparison of pretest and posttest level of
knowledge
Table-4.7: Comparison of pretest and posttest mean knowledge Score

Pretest Posttest
Score Score
Knowledge Ill effects of Student
On plastic usage (N=100) (N=100) paired t-test
Mean S.D Mean S.D
General Plastic t = 9.35
aspects onill 1.9 0.7 3.8 0.5
P=0.001***
effects of
plastic usage Plastic types t = 13.56
0.6 0.4 1.8 0.5
P=0.001***

Other ill Environment t = 9.56

effects of 2.1 0.8 4.3 0.7
P=0.001***
plastic usage
Animals t = 14.15
0.6 0.5 1.6 0.5
P=0.001***
Human t = 13.40
2.2 1.1 4.6 0.6
P =0.001***
Measures t = 8.34
forReduction 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.2
of plastics P =0.001***

*significant at P≤0.05 **highly significant at P≤0.01 ***very

high significant at P≤0.001

Table 4.7 compares pretest and posttest mean knowledge score

 In pretest homemakers had 1.9 score where as in posttest they had

3.8 score regarding plastic ,so the mean difference is 1.9 There is
a statistical significant difference between pretest and posttest.

40
 In pretest homemakers had 0.6 score where as in posttest they
had 1.8 score regarding plastic types ,so the mean difference is
1.2 . There is a statistical significant difference between pretest
and posttest

 In pretest homemakers had 2.1score ,where as in posttest they

had 4.3 score regarding ill effects of plastic on environment ,so
the mean difference is 2.2. There is a statistical significant
difference between pretest and posttest.

 In pretest homemakers had 0.6 score, where as in posttest they

had 1,6 score ,so the mean difference is 1.0 regarding. ill effects
of plastic on animals.There is a statistical significant difference
between pretest and posttest.

 In pretest homemakers had 2.2 score ,where as in posttest they

had 4.6 score ,so the mean difference is 2.4 reagrding ill effects of
plastic on human. There is a statistical significant difference
between pretest and posttest

 In pretest homemakers had 1.0 score where as in posttest they had

2.0 score ,so the mean difference is 1.0 regarding Measures for
reduction of plastics There is a statistical significant difference
between pretest and posttest.

41
Fig-4.9 :pretest and Posttest mean knowledge score

42
Table-4.8 : Comparison of overall knowledge score

Mean difference Percentage of

Mean in knowledge Knowledge gain
Maximum
knowledge with 95% with 95%
Score
score confidence confidence
interval interval

Pretest 20 8.5 9.4 48%

(8.89 -10.24) (44.2 – 50.01)
Posttest 20 18.1

TABLE 4.8 Comparison of overall knowledge gain Score between

pretest and posttest.

On an average, After Video assisted teaching .homemakers gained

48% of the knowledge than posttest. Difference between pretest and
posttest score was analyzed using proportion with 98% and mean
difference with 95% CI.

43
Section- E - Effectiveness of Video assisted teaching
Table-4.9 : Effectiveness of Video Assisted Teaching

Increase Students
Pre Test Post Test
(Post – Pre paired t-
Score Score
Score) test
No‟s 100 100 100
***
Mean 8.7 18.1 9.4 48.5
P=0.001
SD 2.1 1.6 1.9

Table 4.9 shows effectiveness of video assisted teaching between

pretest and posttest knowledge .

Overall, In pretest homemakers had 8.7 mean score and in post

test homemakers had 18.1 mean score . The difference is 9.4 score .Ther
is a stastical significant difference between pretest and posttest .
Difference between pretest and posttest score was analyzed using paired
t-test.

In pretest homemakers are had 42.5% of knowledge score on the

ill effects of plastics usage, In posttest homemakers are had 90.5% of
knowledge score on the ill effects of plastics usage.This is the net
benefit of video assisted teaching.

44
 Fig-4.10:Effectiveness of video assissted teaching

Table 4.10 Pretest and posttest percentage of knowledge gain

Percentage of
Pretest Posttest
Domain Knowledge
Knowledge Knowledge
Gain
Plastic 47.5% 95% 47.5%
Plastic Types 30% 90% 60%
Environment 42% 86% 44%
Animals 30% 80% 50%
Human 44% 92% 48%
Reduction of plastics 64% 100% 35%
Total 42.5% 90.5% 48%

Table 4.10 shows each domain Pretest and posttest percentage of

knowledge gain

In pretest homemakers are had 42.5%of knowledge score on ill

effects of plastics usage. In posttest homemakers had 90.5%of
knowledge score on ill effects of plastics usage Over all homemakers
gained 48% of knowledge on ill effects of plastic usage.
45
Fig-4.11:Effectiveness of Video assisted teaching

46
 Section – E: Association of post test knowledge with selected
demographic variable
Table-4.11: Association Between Posttest Knowledge Level and
Demographic Variable

Post test knowledge

Total χ2 Df
Demographic variable Moderate High Significant
n:2 % n:98 % No %
Age 20-30 yrs - - 41 100.0 41 100
31-40 yrs - - 43 97.0 43 100 10.7 2 P=0.05*
41- 50 yrs 2 12.5 14 87.5 16 100
Educational No formal 2 10.0 18 90.0 20 100
Status education - - 55 100.0 55 100
8.2 2 P=0.05*
1-12th std - - 25 100.0 25 100
Degree
Family Nuclear 1 1.4 69 98.6 70 100
Family 1 3.3 29 96.7 30 100 0.4 1
P = 0.50
Joint Family
Family 1000 – 10000 - - 48 100.0 48 100
Income Per 10000 – 2 4.1 47 95.9 49 100
Month 2.1 2
20000 - - 3 100.0 3 100 P = 0.68
>20000
Religion Hindu 1 1.6 60 98.4 61 100
Christian 1 2.7 36 97.3 37 100 0.2 2
P = 0.40
Muslim - - 3 100.0 2 100
Method of Open land 1 4.3 22 95.7 23 100
waste Burning - - 10 100.0 10 100 0.9 2
disposal P = 0.54
Dustbin 1 1.5 66 98.5 67 100

*significant at P≤0.05 **highly significant at P≤0.01 ***very

high significant at P≤0.001

Table no 4.11 shows the association between level of knowledge

gain and their demographic variables

47
 1. Association between level of knowledge and homemakers
age,it reveals that none of them had inadequate knowledge and
moderate knowledge and 100% had adequate knowledge among the age
group between 21-30 years.About none of them had inadequate
knowledge,3.0 %had moderate knowledge and 97% had adequate
knowledge among the age group 31-40 years.And none of them had
inadequate knowledge,12.5% had moderate knowledge and 87.5 % had
adequate knowledge among the age group 41-50 years

2. Association between the level of knowledge and homemakers

education With respect to educational status none of them had
inadequate knowledge ,10% had moderate knowledge and 90% had
adequate knowledge among no formal education. About none of them
had inadequate knowledge, and moderate knowledge and 100% had
adequate knowledge among 1-1-12 th std.And none of them had
inadequate knowledge and moderate knowledge and 100 % had adequate
knowledge among Graduate. Chi aquare value is 8.2 .

3.With respect to Family type none of them had inadequate

knowledge and 1.4% moderate knowledge and about 98.6% had
adequate knowledge among the Nuclear family .About none of them
had inadequate knowledge,3.3% had moderate knowledge and 96.7%
had adequate knowledge among Joint family. Chi aquare value is 0.4.

4.With respect to Family income none of them had inadequate

knowledge and moderate knowledge and about 100% had adequate
knowledge among the family incomeof Rs 1000-10000 .About none of
them had inadequate knowledge,4.1% had moderate knowledge and
95.9% had adequate knowledge among family income of Rs 1000 -
10000. And none of them had inadequate knowledge and moderate
knowledge and 100 % had adequate knowledge among>20000. Chi
aquare value is 2.1.

48
 5.With respect to Religion none of them had inadequate
knowledge and 1.6% moderate knowledge and about 98.4 % had
adequate knowledge among Hindu .About none of them had inadequate
knowledge,2.7% had moderate knowledge and 97.3% had adequate
knowledge among chirstian. And none of them had inadequate
knowledge and moderate knowledge and 100 % had adequate
knowledge among Muslim. Chi aquare value is 0.1.

6.With respect to Method of waste disposal none of them had

inadequate knowledge and4.3% moderate knowledge and about 95.7%
had adequate knowledge among openland method .About none of them
had inadequate knowledgeand moderate knowledge and 95.9% had
adequate knowledge among family income of Rs 1000-10000. And none
of them had inadequate knowledge and moderate knowledge and 100 %
had adequate knowledge among>20000. Chi aquare value is 0.9.

The study concluded that there is a good correlation between pre

test and posttest knowledge score and the score is statistically
significant (p=0.05) with the age of the homemakers(χ2= 10.7 p=0.05*),
education of the homemakers(χ2=8.2 p=0.05*). It means adequate
education which increases the adequate education which increases the
knowledge among the samples.

49
Fig-4.12:Association between level of knowledge and homemakers age

Fig-4.13:Association between the post test level of knowledge and

homemakers education

50
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
5. Summary of the study results
This chapter deals with the summary of the study. The study was
conducted to ascertain the effectiveness of video assisted teaching about
the ill effects of plastics usage among the homemakers residing in
selected urban area at K.P.Park. in Chennai.

5.1. Based in demographic data findings

 43% of homemakers were in the age group 31-40 years.

 Majority of homemakers (55%) had education upto 1-12 th std.

 Maximum homemakers (70%) were at nuclear family .

 Maximum homemakers (49%) were at Rs 10000-20000 income

 Regarding religion most of the study group (ie). 61% of them

were Hindus.

 Majority of method of waste disposal of the study group

illustrates that 67% were in disposing in open land.

5.2. Based on knowledge score on homemakers before and after

Video assisted teaching
In assessing the pre-test level of knowledge 70.0% of the
homemakers had inadequate knowledge, 30.0% of them had moderate
knowledge and 0% of them had adequate knowledge.

 In posttest none of the homemakers are having inadequate

knowledge, 2% of them had moderate knowledge and 98% of
them had adequate knowledge.

51
 On an average, After VAT, homemakers are gained 48% of the
knowledge than pretest.

 There is a good correlation between post test knowledge and the

score is statistically highly significant (p=0.001)

 There is significant improvement in the level of knowledge after

the video assisted teaching programme.

5.3 Findings based on effectiveness of Video assisted teaching

Overall, In pretest homemakers had 8.7 mean score and in post
test homemakers had 18.1 mean score . The difference is 9.4 score .
There is a statistical significant difference between pretest and po sttest.
Difference between pretest and posttest score was analyzed using paired
t-test.

In pretest homemakers had 42.5% of knowledge score on the ill

effects of plastics usage, In posttest homemakers had 90.5% of
knowledge score on the ill effects of plastics usage.This is the net
benefit of video assisted teaching.

5.4. Findings based on Association between posttest knowledge

and selected demographic variable
The post test knowledge score has significant association with the
age of homemakers, Chi aquare value is 10.7.P= 0.05,education of the
homemakers Chi aquare value is 8.2. There is significant improvement
in the level of knowledge after video assisted teaching.

52
 CHAPTER-VI
DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with discussion of the results of effectiveness
of video assisted teaching about the ill effects of plastics usage among
the homemakers

Objective -1
The first objective was to assess the pre test and post test knowledge
regarding ill effects of plastic usage among homemakers residing at
K.P.Park..

 In assessing the pre-test level of knowledge 70 % of the

homemakers had inadequate knowledge , 30 % of them are
having moderate knowledge and 0 % of them are having adequate
knowledge.

 In assessing the post test level of knowledge, none of the

homemakers had inadequate knowledge, 2% of them are having
moderate knowledge and 98% of them are having adequate
knowledge.

 Overall, homemakers gained 42.5% of knowledge score

Objective-2
The second objective was to determine the effectiveness of video
assisted teaching about the ill effects of plastics usage among
homemakers residing at K.P.Park.
 In pretest homemakers are having 42.5% of knowledge score on
the ill effects of plastics usage, In posttest homemakers are having
90.5% of knowledge score on the ill effects of plastics usage.
 Overall, they gained 48 % of knowledge on ill effects of plastics
and its safe disposal after having video assisted teaching.

53
 Pushpakala K.J, Abraham Chako(2015) conducted a study to
assess the effectiveness of video assisted teaching on kn owledge
regarding plastic hazards .The results shows that mean posttest score
8.50 was higher than mean pretest score .There is significant association
with posttest score at 0.01 level and moderately positive co relation
between Knowledge and demographic variable. so video assisted
teaching was highly knowledge in increasing the knowledge regarding
45.
impact of asthma and practice of inhaler

Nithin Joseph., (2013) conducted a cross sectional study in

Mangalore and objective is to find out the awareness of health hazards
associated with usage of plastics bags The results states that Mean age
of 250 participants was 32-10.8 years. Awareness was significantly
more among females P=0.027 .Among participants 216 (86.4%) P=
0.006 aware of health hazards in plastic bags awareness has improved
knowledge of usage of plastics bags. 23

Objective-3
The third objective was to find out the association between pretest and
posttest knowledge with the selected demographic variables.

1) Age chi square 10.7 which has significant .It is inferred that there
was significant association between age and knowledge on ill
effects of plastic usage.

2) Education chi square 8.2 which significant .It is inferred that

there was significant association between education and
knowledge on ill effects of plastic usage.

Hammani M.B.A,et al.,(2017) conducted a cross section study

,survey awareness and attitude of secondary school regarding plastic
pollution ,implication for environment among 400 students 6 different
secondary schools. Majority of the population understand how plastic
waste environment (85.5%) .Student mean knowledge score was 53%
54
with female (P=0.01) and student whose mother were more educated (P=
0.014) being more knowledgeable. They recommended to assure
governmental support along with environment are needed to bridge the
information gap. There is association between age and knowledge of
mothers 11 .

H 1 – There will be a significant difference between the pre -test and

post-Test level of knowledge, regarding ill effects of plastics usage on
Health among women home makers at KP.Park.

The difference between pretest and posttest was statistically

significant. Hence the Hypothesis stated is accepted.

H2 – - There will be a significant association between the post -

test Knowledge and selected demographic variables of homemakers.

The association between posttest knowledge and selected

demographic variable of homemakers was statistically significant.
Hence the Hypothesis stated is accepted.

55
 CHAPTER-VII
IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS &
CONCLUSION
This chapter deals with the conclusion, implications, for nursing
practice, education, nursing research, administration and
recommendations for future research.

7.1 Implications of the study

The findings of the study have implication for the nursing
profession. The implications drawn from the study were of vital concern
for community nursing practice, nursing education, nursing research and
nursing administration.

Nursing practice
 The study findings related that there is a relationship between the
knowledge on ill effects of plastics usage among the homemakers
residing in K.P.Park..

 The community health nurse can be resource personnel for the

community area and they can also educate them at the gross root
level in imparting knowledge regarding ill effects of plastics
usage among the homemakers.

 The community health nurse has to educate the community people

regarding ill effects of plastics usage both in urban and rural
areas.

 Health education regarding the importance of environmental

sanitation should be provided to the community people.

 Training and in-service education to the school teachers to utilize

the knowledge in hazards of the community.

56
 Not only nurses, but all the health care providers such as auxiliary
nurses and midwives, village health guides, nurses working in
community center should provide in-service education regarding
ill effects of plastics usage.

Nursing education
 To provide the knowledge, the nursing personnel need to be
equipped with adequate knowledge and conduct mass health
education program on ill effects of plastic usages.

 The community health nursing curriculum needs to be

strengthened and should include more content towards school
based health services, which should enable the students to know
about the importance of environmental hygiene.

 The female health workers curriculam needs to be strengthened

and should include more content regarding effects of plastic use.

 The study also emphasizes the special needs for the preparation of
health education material among nursing students who were
engaged in school health services.

Nursing administration
The health administration of nursing at the national, state, district,
institutional and local level should focus their attention on making the
public aware regarding ill effects of plastic usage.

 The nurse administrator should arrange the appropriate training

and teaching material regarding hazards of plastic use and its safe
disposal for the school children, parents and its safe disposal for
the school children and teachers.

57
 The administrator can organize educational programs in schools
and community areas to provide knowledge regarding importance
of effects of ill effects of plastic use.

 The nurse administrator should motivate the students and make

arrangements for periodic health education to the school children
regarding environmental hygiene in the school children regarding
environmental hygiene in the school and in their area.

 The nurse administrator should recommend to the superior for the

supply of suitable posters, pictures related to plastic use, which
can be displayed in the school premises, temples, and in all public
areas.

Nursing research
 The findings of the study help the professional nurses and the
students to develop inquiry by providing a base.

 The study provides baseline for conducting similar studies in

different settings.

7.2 Recommendations for further study

On the basis of the present study the following recommendations
have been made for further study.

 The study can be repeated on the large scale sample to validate

and for better generalization of the findings.

 Descriptive study can be conducted to assess knowledge to assess

knowledge, attitude and practice of homemakers regarding ill
effects of plastic usages.

58
 Comparative study may be conducted to find out the similaritie s
or differences between the knowledge and practices of urban and
rural people.

 Video Assisted Teaching programme on plastic use can be

compared with other teaching Strategies.

 A similar study can be done by using various teaching methods.

 School syllabus may include topic related to plastic use and

environmental hygiene.

7.3 Limitations
 The study was confined to homemakers and shorter period

 Control group can be included in the study to assess the

effectiveness.

7.4 Conclusions
The finding of the study showed that the video assisted teaching
was very effective in improving the level of knowledge. This study will
help the health care professionals to develop appropriate teaching
materials.. There is good between pretest and posttest knowle dge score
is statistically significant with the age of homemakers (χ2=1.5) p= 0.05,
education of homemakers (χ 2 =3.8) p= 0.05. Video assisted teaching is
proven method to improve the knowledge of the homemakers which
will help to facilitate the healthy growth and development and healthy
practices in day to day activities.

59
 REFERENCES

1) National Environment Agency .app2.nea.gov.sg/topics ,wastestats.aspx

Waste Statistics and Recycling Rate for 2010. Available, from:
URL:http://www.cpcb.nic.in .

2) Plastic: A Problem of Global Proportions.[online]. [Cited 2011 Nov

22];Available from; http://www.ecologycenter.org/iptf/ .

3) Central pollution control board (CPCB) India 2014 Plastics and the
Environment Assessing the Impact of the Complete The Ecotourism &
Conservation Society of Sikkim http://www.plasticsresource.com/
plastics_101/ manufacture/how_plastics_are_made.html

4) Kari Embree : Global plastic packaging materials by 2020,july 29

2016.WWWplastic today.com.

5) Global plastic production rises recycling lags ; New worldwide institute

analysis explore trends in plastics consumption and recycling for
immediate release /Jan 28, 2015 .Gaelle gourmelon.

6) Plastic consumptions Jan 13 [cited 2011 Nov 26]; Available from:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/plastic-consumption-to-
double-by-2011/345971/.

7) Dr.parveshbhawan, central pollution control board [Online]. 2009

[cited 2009 Dec]; Available from: URL:http://www.cpcb.nic.in.

8) Environmental Toxicology. National Environmental Engineering

Research Institute for the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation
plastic Industries 2002 Nov; 13(9): 8-10.

9) WECF Women in Europe for a Common Future Blumenstrasse 28 D –

80311 Munich, Germany [email protected]
http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/resburn/resburn.

16
10) The global war against plastic. 2007 Oct 24 [Cited 2011 Nov
26];Availabhttp://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/the-global-war-
against-plastic/

11) Hammami. M.B.A,. Survey on awareness and attitude of secondary

school regarding plastic pollution, implication for environmental
education and public health , cited[2017 July 15 ],10: 10007.

12) Lithner et.al ,environment and health hazards ranking and assessment
of plastic polymer .science total environment , volume 40, issue 18 ,[15
Aug2011] ,pg- 3309-3324.

13) Legesse adane, Diriba Muleta,. Journal of toxicology and environment

health science :Volume [3,August 2011].pp-234-248.

14) Amaral,Kimberly ,plastic in oceans ,sea education association web[

may 4, 2010] volume 14 :pg 342-356

15) Gray .L,Hill,Feet.plastic bags use falls by 26%in 2 years and purpose
and its eventual riddance into the dust bins.[14 sep (2010)] PP -1-84.

16) Rhian Tough, plastic shopping bag environment in fall and policy
options, volume 30, issue 10 ,[15 Aug2007] ,pg- 309-324:URL http
handlenet.1006.

17) Yuan-Tien Su. environmental hazards due to plastic uses and

respiratory health in young children, Vol 4[2006 Dec 5] PP -1-84

18) Girum Bahri .A study on plastic waste and environment degradation

[3 jan 2005],:publication list of org. PP -345-384.

19) .Thiel et.al (2003) Floating marine debris in coastal water: marine
pollution46: 229 PP -23-44.

20) Karliner,J ..corporate planet ,ecology and politics in age of

globalization san 111(4) [Apr 1997],A208. PP -12-18

17
21) Lin CY,Shen FY,Lian GW,Chein KL,Sung FC,Chen PC,Su TC.Level
of serum bisphenol ,harmful chemival in plastic container and
atherosclerosis [2014Aug 24] pp – 245-256.

22) Wang .J,Li.L, Lu.Y, investigation and analysis of factors that affect
the health of children in the plastic recycling,Sep 2014 ,690-2.

23) Nithin Joseph., Journals of clinical research ,usage of plasyic bags

and health hazards ,assess the level and perception about legislation
volume 3 [2013].PP.234-245

24) Heleal.SF. Elshafy.WS.,(2013) Health hazards among workers in

plastic industry toxicol and health, oct 29 may 18. PP.34-46

25) Calafat.AM ,Wong.LY,Reidy.JA,needham.LL,.(2012) Exposure to

bisphenol A and environment health prespect jan 1 39-44 .

26) Brophy JT, Keith MM.Mortality pattern among workers exposed to

styrene :Journals of science,Nov 2012 volume 3, Pg .462 -543.

27) D`Mello, Pamela. Plastic bag problem :The Asian age ,volume -12
[2012 Jan 4]pp-163.

28) Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Milan G, Turato A, Pavanello S.

Lung cancer risk in workers exposed to poly (vinyl chloride) dust: a
nested case-referent study. 2003 Jun [cited 2011 Nov 25]; 60(6):423-
8.Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12771394 .

29) Rofl U. Halden, National institute of environmental health science and

prevention of health [Jan2010] plastic and environment,1-8pages.

30) Cathy Ryan. Reused water bottles and its effects. Darnell J `2007 Nov
13;35(3).

31) Hanaoka.T,Yoshimura.M,Zhang.S,Wang.p,Tsukino.H,Inoue.K,Tsugane
.s,Impact of phthalate increased serum ,free testosterone in workers a
cross sectional study. Environ prespect,2006, Nov,114 :1648-8

18
32) Swan.S.H, Main. K.M, Liu.F, Kruse.R.L.Stewart.S.L,Mao.C.S,Redmon
.J.B,Sullivan.S,Teaque.J.L ,Environ health prespect 2005 sep;113. PP-
220-234

33) Lovekamp.TN,Davis .B,Mano phthalate level :2001May 1,PP.217 -224.

34) Avfar Sverig, Swedish Waste Management annual publication lifecycle

of plastic cycle,[sep 2, 2015] volume 5 ,pp 12-23

35) Dr.parveshbhawan ,National Environmental Engineering Research

Institute for the Brihan Mumbai Muncipal Corporation,[2012 Feb
6].pp 34-45.

36) Aline Marques Rolim, Luis Felip,Nascimento. Post consumer plastic

recycling technology [2015 Nov 25]; 40(6): 2-9.

37) J .N Fobil and J. N Hogarh, Dilemmas of plastic waste in developing

economy, proposed sustainable management approach, Journal of
applied ecology [2009 June,2] volume 10 pp-23-32

38) Rann PM, Hill HJ, Environmental protection heritage council.

Reusage of
bags.[online].Availablefrom:URL:www.kesab.asn.au/KESAB%20STA
TS/Government%20Response.pdf [2008 Nov 2].

39) Reiss A.(2008), Barriers to behaviour change and the application of

social marketing tools.[online]. Available from:
URL:http://docs/google.com/AReiss490sThesis.pdf.

40) Mercer A, Hall J, Archibald G, Hyde M, Gupta V. (2005), Plastic

wastemanagementstrategyforOntario.[online].Availablefrom:URL:http:
//docs.google.com/Dfile files_Plastics_Waste_Management.pdf

41) Shah, Priya “Plastic devil :Ecological menace rate of cycling [Jan 25
2011] http\\ plastic recycle, pp23-34

42) Amrutha pretty. Plastic wastage around the streets. Times of India
[2000 Jan 16]; p.1113.
19
43) Dr.Kemp.Directorate of Department of Environmental and Heritage.
Bombay [2008Aug1] pp-12

44) Sheetal udaykar, Markarand udaykar “ International Journal of science

and researchindex valur [2015october ] volume 4,Issue 10 PP -183-226

45) Pushpakala K.J, Abraham Chako, assess the effectiveness of video

assisted teaching on knowledge regarding plastic hazards, Chettinad
hospital and research institute :Journal of research and social science,
[2015]volume 3,issue 6 ,PP-56-58

46) Pushpamala Ramaiah , A A Noor siah,.Effectiveness of video assisted

teaching regardingobstetrical emergencies, Journal of research and
social science [October 7 2015] volume 13,issue7 ,PP-6-10

WEB SITES
1) www.Pubmed.com

2) www.medicine.com

3) www.cdc.gov/oral health/topics/child.htm

4) www.adha.org

5) www. livestrong.com

6) www.who.int/hrh/nursing midwifery\

7) www.anmc.org.au

20
 APPENDIX- I
Respected people ,

I am the student of college of nursing ,Madras Medical College

conducting research “A study to assess the effectiveness of video assisted
teaching on knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among
homemakers at KP.Park ,Chennai ’’ so please kindly co-operate with us and put
Tick (√) in the box.

SECTION – A

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

1) Age

a) 20-30 yrs
b) 31-40 yrs
c) 41- 50 yrs

2) Educational Status

a) No formal education
b) 1st – 12th std
c) Graduate

3) Family

a) Nuclear Family
b) Joint Family
4) Family Income Per Month

a) 1000 – 10000
b) 10000 – 20000
c) >20000

5) Religion

a) Hindu
b) Christian
c) Muslim

6) Method of waste disposal

a) Open land
b) Burning
c) Dustbin
 SECTION B
Part -I plastics
1) Plastic means
a) not usable
b) able to mould in to different shapes
c) decomposable

2) people use plastics because

a) good for health
b) expensive
c) easy to carry

3) Plastics currently using is

a) Polyvinylchloride
b) Polyethylene
c) Polycarbonate

4) The acceptable standard thickness of plastic bags

a) Above 40 microns
b) Below 40 microns
c) 20 microns

Part-II Types of plastics

5) Thermoplastic means
a) Strong plastic
b) Can be melted and reshaped
c) Used for ever
6) Thermosetting means
a) Cannot be reshaped
b) Degradable
c) Easily disposable

Part-III Ill effects of plastics on environment

7) The decomposition of plastic takes place

a) 100-200 years
b) 500-100 years
c) 300-400 years

8) Landfill plastics releases the harmful chemicals which affects

a) Birds
b) Animals
c) Soil and underground water

9) Burning of Plastics releases methane leads to

a) Global warming
b) Soil erosion
c) Water pollution

10) Bio- degradable plastics means

a) Non –Decomposable
b) Decompose by bacteria
c) Harmful to health

11) Plastic pollution occurs due to

a) Increase in plastic use

b) Drainage water
c) Decrease in plastic use
Part IV- ill effects of plastics on Animals

12. Ingestion of plastic by seashore animals leads to

a) Brain damage
b) vomiting
c) Death

13) ------------ of animals died due to ingestion of plastic

a) 3 million
b) 1.5 million
c) 2 million

Part V- ill effects of plastics on health

14) Plastic water bottle can be used for

a) Single use
b) More than 2 times
c) Used for ever

15) Plastic has numerous ill effects because

a) Bio –degradable
b) Non degradable
c) Unable to melt

16) The ill effects of plastics on human leads to dangerous disease

a) AIDS
b) Hypertension
c) Cancer
17) Intake of plastic packed food will cause

a) Increase in weight
b) Nutritious to health
c) Injurious to health

18) Biodegradable plastic is made up of

a) Chemicals
b) Vegetable oil and starch
c) Metals

Part VI – Measures for reduction of plastics

19) The Environment friendly alternative to plastics bags

a) Cotton and jute bags

b) Rubber bags
c) Biodegradable plastics.

20) Reduction of plastics can be done by

a) Reduce the use and recycle

b) Burning of plastics

c) Proper disposal
 Key answers

Question No Answer key

1. b
2. c
3. b
4. a
5. b
6. a
7. b
8. c
9. a
10. b
11. a
12. c
13. b
14. a
15. b
16. c
17. c
18. b
19. a
20. a
kjpg;gpw;Fupakf;fNs!

ehd; nrd;id nrtpypau; fy;Y}upapy; gbf;Fk; khztp ;’gpsh];bf;fpd;

jPatpisTfs;”gw;wp Muha;rr
; pnra;fpNwd;. Mifahy; gpsh];bf; NfLfisg; gw;wp
cq;fSilanghJ mwpit mwpa Nfs;tpfs; nfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mij gbj;J Vw;w
gjpiy (√ ) nra;Jgjpy; mspf;fTk;.

gFjp-m

nrhe;j tptuq;fs;:

1) taJ tuk;G
m) 20-30
M) 31-40
,) 41-50

2) gbg;G
m) Kiwahd fy;tp ,y;iy
M) 1Kjy; 12Mk; tFg;G
,) gl;lgbg;G

3) FLk;gk;
m) jdpFLk;gk;
M) $l;LFLk;gk;

4) FLk;g tUkhdk;

m) 1000 – 10000

M) 1000- 20000

,) 20000 Nky;

5) kjk;

m) ,e;J

M) fpwp];Jt kjk;

,) K];ypk;
6) Fg;ig nfhl;Lk; Kiw

m) jpwe;j epyj;jpy;

M) vupf;Fk; Kiw

,) Fg;igj; njhl;b

பகுதி - ஆ

I-gpsh];bf;

1. gpsh];bf; vd;why; vd;d?

m) cgaNahfpf;f KbahJ
M) cUFk; jd;ikAilaJ
,) mopaf; $bait

2. kf;fs; gpsh];bf; gad;gLj;jfhuzk;

m) cly; eyj;jpw;F ey;yJ
M) tpiycah;e;jJ
,) vspjpy; gad;gLj;j $bait

3. ehk; md;whlk; gad;gLj;Jk; gpsh];bf;fpd; ngah;

m) ghyp;tpidy; FNshiuL
M) ghypvj;jpypd;
,) ghypfhh;gNdl;

4. gpsh];bf; gad;gLj;j mDkjpf;fg;gl;l jbkdpd; msT

m) 40 ikf;uhd;]; Nky;
M) 40 ikf;uhd;]; fPo;
,) 20 ikf;uhd;];

II- gpsh];bf; tiffs;

5. njh;Nkhgpsh];bf; vd;why; vd;d?

m) fbdkhdgpsh];bf;
M) ,yFk; jd;ikAilaJ>cUkhw;wk; nra;af; $baJ
,) neLehs; cgNahfg;gLj;jyhk;
6. njh;Nkhnrl;bq; vd;why; vd;d?
m) cUfpcUkhw;wk; nra;a ,ayhJ
M) kf;Fk; jd;ikAilaJ
,) mg;Gwg;gLj;j $baJ

III. Rw;W#oy; ghjpg;G

7. gpsh];bf; epyj;jpy; kf;Fk; fhyk;

m) 100 – 200 tUlq;fs;
M) 500 – 1000 tUlq;fs;v
,) 300 – 400 tUlq;fs;

8. epyj;jpy; kf;Fk; gpsh];bf; Ntjpg; nghUs;fis ntspNaw;Wtjhy; Kjypy;

ghjpf;fg;gLtJ?
m) gwitfs;
M) tpyq;Ffs;
,) kz; kw;Wk; epyj;jbePu;

9. gpsh];bf; vhpg;gjhy; cUthFk; er;RGifahy; (kPj;Njd;) Vw;gLj;Jk; ghjpg;G

m) Gtpntg;gkakhjy;
M) kz; mhpg;G
,) ePh; khRgLjy;

10. kf;ff; $ba gpsh];bf; vd;gJ

m) rpijf;fKbahJ
M) ghf;Bhpahthyrpijf;f $baJ
,) cly; eyj;jpw;FNfL

11. gpsh];bf; khRghL Vw;glf; fhuzk;

m) gpsh];bf; gad;ghl;ilmjpfhpj;jy;
M) fopTePh;
,) gpsh];bf; gad;ghl;ilFiwj;jy;
IV- tpyq;Ffs; ghjpg;G

12. fly;tho; caphpdq;fs; (kPd;>flw;gwit) gpsh];bf; cl;nfhs;tjhy; Vw;gLk; tpisT

m) %iy ghjpg;G
M) the;jp
,) ,wg;G

13. gpsh];bf; cl;nfhs;tjhy; ……………… tpyq;Ffs; ,wf;fpd;wd.

m) 3 kpy;ypad;
M) 1.5 kpy;ypad;
,) 2 kpy;ypad;

V- kdpjDf;Fghjpg;G

14. FbePh; ghl;by;fis vj;jid Kiwgad;gLj;jyhk;

m) xUKiw
M) ,uz;LKiw
,) neLehs;

15. gpsh];bf; mjpftpisTfis Vw;gLj;j$baJ Vnddpy;

m) kf;Fk; jd;ikaw;wJ
M) kf;Fk; jd;ikAilaJ
,) cUFk; jd;ikaw;wJ

16. gpsh];bf;fhy; kdpjDf;F Vw;glf;$ba Mgj;jhd Neha;

m) va;l;];
M) ,uj;jnfhjpg;G
,) Gw;WNeha;
17. gpsh];bfpy; milf;fg;gl;l czTfis cl;nfhz;lhy;
m) vil $Lk;
M) MNuhf;fpakhdJ
,) cly; eyj;ijghjpf;Fk;

18. kf;ff;$bagpsh];bf; vjdhy; MdJ

m) NtjpnghUl;fs;
M) jhtuvz;nza;> ];lhh;r;
,) cNyhfq;fs;

VI- gpsh];bif Fiwf;f topKiwfs;

19. Rw;W #oYf;F Vw;g gpsh];bf;fpw;fhdkhw;W

m) Jzp igfs; kw;Wk; rzy; igfs;

M) ,ug;gh; igfs;
,) kf;Fk; gpsh];bf;

20. gpsh];bf; cgNahfpg;gij vt;thW jLf;fyhk;

m); gpsh];bf; cgNahfpg;gij Fiwf;fyhk; kw;Wk; kWRow;rr

; p
M) vupf;Fk; Kiw

,); rupahd Khwapy; mg;Gwg;gLj;JtJ

LESSON PLAN ON ILL
EFFECTS OF PLASTIC
USAGE
INTRODUCTION:

The global environment is changing day by day and now it has become challenge to living life forms due to very ugly fact that
every nation is trying to develop their countries without taking into environmental impact of degradation. People are using
plastic bag which are environmentally dangerous products and harmful to health. They are mainly used for their daily needs
mainly for shopping purposes, and therefore environment and agricultural lands are thereby being polluted.

It is said that people began to use plastic bags to carry groceries and goods by hands and these bags become popularized
rapidly in last quarter of 20th century. No accurate statistics have been seriously made on the total number of plastic bags
produced so far, but today trillion plastic bags are being used worldwide.

The plastic is fully growing disaster and most plastics are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource that destroys
fragile ecosystem and these toxic manmade chemicals have been shown to be accumulating in the bodies of both humans and
animals.

Plastic is made from petroleum by-products. Raw materials used in the manufacture of plastics are petroleum,natural
gas, coal, and some salts. Plastic makes around 4% of all oil products. It is extracted in the process of oil refining in
petrochemical plants, which is a major and complex process also a lot of contaminating material.
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.V aids
Objective Activity Activity

1 2min The group will Meaning of Plastic: defining

able to define plastic listening Video
The term ‘’plastic’’ is derived from the Greek word
plastic and
''plastikos'' meaning fit for moulding, and ''plastos''
meaning of
meaning moulded. Plastic is the common term used
plastic
for a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic
materials

Definition:

Plastic are synthetic polymers that are made up of

long chains by repeating molecular units called
monomers. Monomers such as Vinyl chloride styrene
and acrylonitrile are produced by petrochemicals.

2 3min list out the Types of Plastics:

types of listing out Listening Video
1. Thermoplastic: Thermoplastic materials are
plastics the types of
polymers that can be repeatedly softened and
plastics
reshaped with the application of heat and
pressure. It can be return to their original
form. Examples include polyethylene(PE),
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.V aids
Objective Activity Activity

Polypropylene(PP) and polyvinyl

chloride(PVC)

2. Thermosetting: Thermosetting materials

undergo a chemical reactions that results in
permanent product that cannot be softened
reshaped. They are hard and durable.
Thermosets can be used for auto parts, aircraft
parts and tires. Examples include
polyurethanes, polyesters, epoxy resins and
phenolic resins.

Common Plastics:

 Polythene

 Polypropylene

 Polycarbonate

 Polyvinyl chloride(PVC)

 Polytetrafluoroethylene
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s Evaluation
Objective Activity Activity

3. 5min illustrate the Ill Effects of Plastics: illustrating Lisenting Video

ill effects of  Effects on Environment the ill
plastics on effects of
 Effects on Human health
environment plastic on
 Effects on Animals
environment
Effects on Environment:

The distribution of plastic decries is highly

variable as a result of certain factors such as wind
and ocean currents, coastline geography, urban areas,
and trade routes.

Land Pollution:

When plastic is dumped in landfills, it interacts

with water and form hazardous chemicals. When
these chemicals seep underground, they degrade the
water quality.
Wind carries and deposits plastic from one place
to another, increasing the land litter. It can also get
stuck
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.V aids
Objective Activity Activity

on poles, traffic lights, trees, fences, tower etc. and

animals that may come in the vicinity and might
suffocate them to death.

Air Pollution:

Burning of plastic in the open air, leads to

environmental pollution due to the release of
poisonous chemicals. The polluted air when inhaled
by humans and animals affect their health and cause
respiratory problems.

Ocean:

In 2012, it was estimated that there was

approximately 165 million tons of plastic pollution
in the world’s oceans.

Groundwater Pollution:

Water is in great danger because of leaking

plastics and waste and this pollutes the drinking
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.Vaids
Objective Activity Activity

water. Groundwater and reservoirs are susceptible

leaking environmental toxins.
explain the
ill effects of Effects on Human health:
4 5min explaining Lisenting Video
plastic on
Due to the pervasiveness of plastic products, most the ill
human
of them human population is constantly exposed to effects of
health
the chemical components of plastics. Exposures to plastics on
chemicals have been correlated with disruptions in human
fertility, reproduction, sexual maturation, and other health
health effects.

Polyvinylchloride (#3PVC) –( Food packaging,

plastic wrap, water pipes,) cause

 cancer,

 birth defects,

 genetic changes,

 chronic bronchitis,

 ulcers, skin diseases,

 deafness, vision failure,

 indigestion, and liver dysfunction

S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.Vaids
Objective Activity Activity

Polycarbonate with Bisphenol –(Water bottles)

 impaired immune function,

 early onset of puberty,

 obesity, diabetes,

 and hyperactive

Phthalates (DEHP)-

(toys and children’sproducts, product

packaging and food wrap,heat-sealed plastic
packaging, kitchenware, plastic bags )

 Endocrine disruption,
 linked to asthma,
 developmental
 reproductive effects.,
 birth defects,

s
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s
Objective Activity Activity A.V aids

BPA, a low grade estrogen was until recently

found in plastic bottles labeled with the number of 7
recycling symbol, and is still used as an internal
coating for aluminum cans. BPA exposure has also
been associated with various health problems
including,

 Learning and behavioral problems

 Altered immune system function
 Early puberty in girls and fertility problems
 Decreased sperm count in boys
 Prostate cancer for boys and breast cancer in
girls
 It affects gender development in male off
spring

 Cardio vascular disease, neurological disorder

S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.V aids
Objective Activity Activity

5. 3min describe Effects on Animals: describing listening Video

the ill the ill
Plastic pollution has potential to, which can
effects of effects of
then poison animals, which can than adversely affect
plastics on plastics on
animals. Entanglement in plastics debris has been
animals animals
responsible for the deaths of many marine
organisms, such as fish, seals, turtles, and birds.

These animals get caught in the debris and end

up in suffocating or drowning. Because they are
unable to untangle themselves.

Marine Animals:

 Sea turtles are affected by plastic pollution.

This plastic debris can kill the sea turtle by
upsetting the esophagus

 So too are whales, large amounts of plastics

have been found in the stomachs of whales.

 Some of the tiniest bits of plastic are being

consumed by small fish, in a part of the pelagic
zone in the ocean.
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s Evaluation
Objective Activity Activity

Birds:

Plastic pollution does not only affect animals that

live solely in oceans.

 plastic obstruct and damage a bird’s digestive

system, reducing its digestive ability and lead
to malnutrition, starvation and death.

 Toxic chemicals called polychlorinated

biphenyls also become concentrated on the
surface of plastics at sea and are released after
seabirds eat them.

 These chemicals can accumulate in body

tissues and have serious lethal effects on a
bird’s reproductive ability, immune system,
and hormone balance.

 Floating plastic debris can produce ulcers,

infections and lead to death.
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s A.V aids
Objective Activity Activity

6. 2min explain the explain the Lisenting Video

alternatives Alternatives to Plastic products: alternatives
to plastic to plastic
 Buy food in glass or metal containers, avoid
product polycarbonate drinking bottles with product
Bisphenol.

 Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or

storing fatty foods in plastic containers or
plastic wrap.

 Do not give young children plastic teethers or

toys.

 Use natural fiber clothing, bedding and

furniture.

 Avoid all PVC and Styrene products.

MEASURES FOR REDUCTION OF
PLASTICS USAGE
 SHOP FRIENDLY

Plastic are were once a modern convenience

but can be efficiently replaced by reusable
bags which fold up compactly in order to be
portable.steels and glasses.
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s Evaluation
Objective Activity Activity

There are many environment friendly

alternative to plastic bags such as jute bags,
paper bags bio - degradable bags and reusable.

 GET RID OF BOTTLED WATER :

People are meant to drink lots of water each

day and plastic water bottle have become a
greater way to stay hydrated.

It is recommended for single use so only after

using a water bottle you have to trash it.

Many companies now sell reusable water

bottles as a substitute reducing plastic water.

 FORGOT TO GET CONTAINERS:

Avoid use of food in containers . If we had tea

in paper cup , it is coated with plastic cup it is
coated With plastic to prevent damage .

The heat is observed by plastic cup it releases the

chemicals and affects health.so we can use metals,
S.No Time Specific Content Teacher’s Learner’s Evaluation
Objective Activity Activity

4 Lisenting

 RECYCLE EVERYTHING

Try and select items that come in non plastic

recycled and recyclable packaging to do the
best to properly handle items that cannot
reused.

Check everything before you put in the

trash,as more and more item are able to be
recycled these days.

CONCLUSION
Finally I conclude my topic that plastics should be
avoided to make our future generation to have a
healthy life. As a housewives you have to take steps to
reduce the use of plastics. By educating and creating
awareness in proper management of plastic wastes,
the ill effects can be reduced.
 gpsh!;of;fpd;
tpist[fisg; gw;wpa
ghlj;jpl;lk;
Kd;Diu:

gpsh!;of; bghUl;fis cgBahfg;gLtjpdhy; fHp;t[ kw;Wk; kiH e`u; mjpy; BjA;fp Beha; tUtjw;F

Kf;fpakhd fhuzpahf cs;sJ. gpsh!;of; igfs; Bjitf;Bfw;w mstpYk; totj;jpYk; vspjpy;

cgBahfg;glj;jf; Toajhft[k; cs;sjhy;, kf;fs; mij mjpf mstpy; gad;gLj;Jfpwhu;fs; nd;iwa

ny;yj;jurpfs; rK}fj;jpy; Kf;fp[akhd mA;fj;jpy; cs;sdu;; vdBt gpsh!;of; bghUl;fis

cgBahfg;gLj;Jtjpdhy; cz;lhff;Toa vjpu;tpist[[fisg;gw;wp mtu;fsplk; vLj;Jf;TWtjd; K`yk;

khw;wj;ijf; bfhz;Lte;J tskhd vjpu; fhyj;ij cUthf;f Koa[k;. ehk; gad;gLj;Jk; gpsh!;of; ekJ

clYf;F ghjpg;ig Vw;gLj;JfpwJ, tpyA;Ffspd; capUf;F Mgj;J Vw;gLj;JfpwJ kw;Wk; Rw;Wr; R{Hiy

ghjpf;fpwJ.
tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp- ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

1. gpsh!;of; gpsh!;of;
2epkp gpsh!;of; ftdpj;jy; xypcU
tiuaiu gpsh!;of; vd;gJ xU braw;ifahd Kiwapy; tiuaiu- fhl;rp
bjhHpyf gad;ghl;ow;fhf gad;gLj;Jk; xU j;jy;
tif jpz;k bghUs; MFk;.

gpsh!;of; tiffs; gpsh!;of;

3epkp gpsh!;of;
2. tiffis xypcU
tiffs; 1. bju;Bkh gpsh!;of; ftdpj;jy;
tupirg;gL fhl;rp
2. bju;Bkh brl;oA; -j;jy; ;
1.bju;Bkh gpsh!;of;

bju;Bkh gpsh!;of; vd;gJ vd;gJ xU

tifahd ghypku; beUg;gpd; K}}yk; cUf;fp
cUkhw;wk; bra;ag;gLk;.

2.bju;Bkh brl;oA;

bju;Bkh brl;oA; nuhraz bghUl;fs; K}yk;

bra;ag;gLtJ, mij cUf;fp cUkhw;wk; bra;a
nayhJ.
tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; -ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

3. 5epkp gpsh!;of; gpsh!;of;fpd; tpist[fs;: gpsh!;of; ftdpj;jy; xypcU

fpd; fpd;
1. Rw;WRHypy; Vw;gLk; tpist[fs; fhl;rp
tpist[fs; tpist[fs; ;
2. kdpju;fSf;F Vw;gLk; tpist[fs;
tptupj;jy;
3. tpyA;FfSf;F Vw;gLk; tpist[fs;

Rw;WR{Hypy; Vw;gLk; tpist[fs;:

 gpsh!;of;if kz;zpy; g[ijg;gjpdhy;

ePu;jhiwfspy; ePBuhl;lj;ijj; jLf;fpwJ.

 gpsh!;of; igfs; mA;Fk; nA;Fkhf

gwe;J tptrha epyj;ij mile;J

tpijfis tsu tplhky; jLf;fpwJ.

 gpsh!;of; igfs; 500-1000 Mz;Lfs;

tiu kf;fhky; kz;zpy; g[ije;jpUf;Fk;.

njdhy; kztsk; Fiwe;J epyj;joePu;

ruptpfpj msitf; Fiwf;fpwJ

naw;ifia rPuHpf;fpwJ.
tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; -ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

 gpsh!;of;if vupg;gjdhy; mjpypUe;J

btspBaWk; kPj;Bjd; vz;Zk; er;Rg;g[if,

g{kpia btg;gikahf;FfpwJ. njdhy;

fhw;W khRg;gLj;JfpwJ.

 Rkhu; 165 kpy;ypad; gpsh!;of; flypy;

fye;J fliy khRg;gLj;JfpwJ.

4. 5epkp kdpju;f kdpju;fSf;F Vw;gLk; jPA;F tpist[fs; kdpju;fS ftdpj;jy; xypcU

Sf;F f;F
gpsh!;of; jahupg;gjw;F gp!;gpidy; vd;Dk; fhl;rp
Vw;gLk; Vw;gLk; ;
jPA;F xUtif Btjpg;bghUs; gad;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ. jPA;F
tpist[fs; tpitfis[
me;j BtjpbghUshdJ
;tptupj;jy;

 g[w;WBeha;

 njaBeha;

 ru;;f;fiu Beha;

 fy;yPru;;f;fiu Beha;, khWghLfs;

tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; -ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

 tsUk; FHe;ijfspilBa K}is Beha;fs;

Vw;gl fhuzkhf cs;sJ.

 gpsh!;of; bghUl;fspy; rikf;fToa

czt[g;bghUlfspy; R{L fhuzhkhf

gpsh!;of; cUfp Beha; tuf;Toa

mghak; cs;sJ.

 gpsh!;of; ghloy; nUf;Fk; jz;zPiu

cl;bfhs;;tjhy; Beha; vjpu;g[ rf;jp

Fiwa[k;. Bjhypy; khw;wk; Vw;gLk; kw;Wk;

rupahd gpur;rid Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ.

 bgz;fSf;F khu;gf g[w;WBeha;,

fu;gg;ig ghjpg;g[ Vw;glt[k; fhuzkhf

cs;sJ.
tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp- ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

5. 3epkp tpyA;Ff tpyA;FfSf;F Vw;gLk; tpist[fs; tpyA;Ff- ftdpj;jy; xypcU

Sf;F Sf;F
 tPl;L tpyA;Ffshd khL kw;Wk; ML ;
fhl;rp
Vw;gLk; Vw;gLk;
g[w;fBshL Bru;e;J gpsh!;of;
tpist[fs;
bghUl;fis cz;ghjhy; mJ nwe;J tpitfis[
tpLfpwJ. ;tpsf;Fjy;
 flypy; thGk; capupdA;fshd kPd;, fly;

Mik jpkpA;fyk; kw;Wk; gwitfs;;

gpsh!;ofs; igfis czt[ vd

epidj;J cl;bfhs;tjhy; bjhzilapy;

rpf;fp.milg;g[ Vw;gl;L nwe;J tpLfpwJ.

 tpyA;Ffs;, gwitfs; cl;bfhs;Sk;

gpsh!;of;fpypUe;J btspBaWk; nurhaz
bghUs; cly; eyj;ij ghjpf;fpwJ.
gpsh!;of; gpsh!;of;fp
gpsh!;of;fpdhy; Vw;gLk; tpist[fis jLf;Fk; xypcU
2 epkp fpdhy; dhy; ftdpj;jy;
6. Kiwfs;
Vw;gLk; Vw;gLk; fhl;rp
tpist[fis
tpist[fi  kpft[k; bky;ypa gpsh!;of; bghUs;fis ;
jLf;Fk;
s cgbahfpg;gij jLf;f Btz;Lk;.
Kiwfs;
jLf;Fk;
tpsf;Fjy;
Kiwfs;
tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp- ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

 mjdhy; 40 ikf;uhd;!;-f;F nUf;Fk;

gpsh!;of; igfis cgBahfpf;fyhk;.

 Jzp rzy; ig kw;Wk; fz;zhoapyhd

bghUl;fis gad;gLj;j Btz;Lk;

 cByhfj;jhy; Md ghj;jpuA;fspy;

kl;LBk czt[g;bghUl;fis rikj;J

cz;zBtz;Lk;

 gpsh!;of; ghl;oy;fspy; cs;s

jz;zPu;f;F gjpyhf fz;zho

ghl;oy;fspy; cs;s jz;zPu;f;F gjpyhf

fz;zho ghloy;fspy; jz;zPiu gUf

Btz;Lk;

 R{L epiwe;j czt[fis gpsh!;of;

ghj;jpuA;fspy; cz;;gij

jtpu;f;fBtz;Lk;.
tupir Beuk; Fwpg;ghd Muha;r;rp ny;yj;ju Xsp-xypr;
bghUslf;fk; -ahsupd; -fspd;
vz; Fwpf;Bfhs; rhjdA;fs;
bray; bray;

 FHe;ijfSffF gpsh!;of; ghl;oy;

gjp;yhd; fz;zho ghl;oy;

gad;gLj;jyhk;.

 kWRHw;r;rpf;F mDg;g[tjd; K}yk;

gpsh!;of;;fpdhy; Vw;gLk; tpist[fis

jLf;Fk;.

 kf;Fk; jd;ik ny;yhj gpsh!;of;fpw;F

gjpyhf kf;Fk; gpsh!;of;if

gad;gLj;jyhk;.

 gpsh!;of; tpist[fis gw;wp kf;fSf;F

tpHpg;g[zu;t[ Vw;gLj;jyhk;.
Kotiu:

nJtiu ehk; gpsh!;of; gw;wpa[k; mjdhy; cz;lhFk; tpist[fis; kw;Wk; Beha;fis gw;wp mwpe;Bjhk;.

mjdhy; gpsh!;of; cgBahfpg;gij jLj;jhy; ek; vjpu;fhy thH;f;if tskhf nUf;Fk;.MfBt

ny;yj;jurpfs; mfpa e`A;fs; gpsh!;of; cgBahfpg;gij jLf;f Kaw;r;rpfis Bkw;bfhs;s

Btz;Lk;.FLk;gj;jpdu;f;F gpsh!;of; gw;wpa tpist[fis Twp kw;Wk; tpHpg;g[zu;t[ Vw;gLj;Jtjd; K`yk;

gpsh!;of;fpd; j`A;Ffis Fiwf;fyhk;.

 INFORMATION TO PARTICIPANTS

Title of the study: “A study to assess the effectiveness of video assisted teaching on
knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among homemakers at
KP.Park Chennai.”

The Purpose of the Research (explain briefly): This research is conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of video assisted teaching among college students on raising their knowledge
scores regarding preconception care for their success study.

Confidentiality of the information obtained from you:

You have the right to confidentiality regarding the privacy of your personal details. Your privacy
in the study will be maintained throughout the study in the event of any publication or
presentation resulting from the research, no personally identifiable information will be shared.
The information from this study, if published in scientific journals or presented at scientific
meetings, will not reveal your identity.

How will your decision not to participate in the study affect you?

Your decisions not to participate in this research study will not affect your activity of daily
living, medical care or your relationship with investigator or the institution.

Can you decide to stop participating in the study once you start?

The participation in this research is purely voluntary and you have the right to withdraw
from this study at any time during course of the study without giving any reasons.
However, it is advisable that you talk to the research team prior to stopping the treatment.

Signature of Investigator Signature of Student

Date: Date:
 INFORMED CONSENT

Title of the study: “A study to assess the effectiveness of video assisted teaching on
knowledge regarding ill effects of plastic usage among homemakers at
KP.Park Chennai.”

Investigator : Nisha.P

Name of Participant :

Age/sex :

Date :

Name of the institution :

Documentation of the informed consent: (legal representative can sign if the participant is
minor, unconscious or incompetent).

 I have read/it has been read for me, the information in this form. I
was free to ask any questions and they have been answered. I am over 20 yrs of age and
exercising my free power of choice, hereby give my consent to be included as a
participant in the study.
 I have read and understood this consent form and the information provided to me.
 I have had the consent document explained in detail to me.
 I have been explained about the nature of my study.
 My rights and responsibilities have been explained to me by the investigator.
 I agree to cooperate with the investigator
 I have not participated in any research study at any time.
 I am aware of the fact that I can opt out of the study at any time without having to give
any reason
  I hereby give permission to the investigators to release the information obtained from me
as a result of participation in this study to the regulatory authorities, government agencies
and Institutional ethics committee.
 I understand that they are publically presented; my identity will be kept confidential.
 I am aware that I have any question during this study; I should contact the concerned
investigator.

Signature of Investigator Signature of Student

Date: Date:
 Ra xg;Gjy; gbtk;

Ma;T jiyg;G : fhnzhyp %yk; gpsh];bf;fpd; jPatpisTfs;” gw;wp

,y;yj;juprpf@f;F fw;gpj;jy;

Ma;thsh; ngah; : eprh. G

gq;Nfw;ghsh; ngah; :

Ma;T eilngWk; ,lk; :

…………………………………………….vd;gtuhfpa ehd; ,e;j Ma;tpd; tptuq;fSk; mjd;

Nehf;fq;fSk; KOikahf mwpe;J nfhz;Nld;. vdJ re;Njfq;fs; midj;jpw;Fk; jFe;j
tpsf;fk; mspf;fg;gl;lJ. ,e;j Ma;tpy; KO Rje;jpuj;Jld; kw;Wk; RaepidTld; gq;F
nfhs;s rk;kjpf;fpNwd;.

1. ehd; ,e;j xg;Gjy; jfty; jhs;gbj;J Ghp;e;J nfhz;Nld;.

2. ,r;Ra xg;Gjy; gbtj;ij gw;wp vdf;F tpsf;fg;gl;lJ.
3. vdf;F tpsf;fg;gl;l tp=aq;fis ehd; Ghpe;J nfhz;Nld;. ehd; vdJ
rk;kjj;ij njhptpf;fpNwd;.
4. ,e;j Ma;tpid gw;wpa midj;J jfty;fSk; vdf;F njhptpf;fg;gl;lJ.
5. ,e;j Ma;tpy; Vw;gLk; ghjpg;Gfs; gw;wp vdf;F tpsf;fk; mspf;fg;gl;lJ.
6. ,e;j Ma;tpy; vdJ chpik kw;Wk; gq;fpid gw;wp mwpe;J nfhz;Nld;.
7. ehd; Ma;thsUf;F KO xj;Jiog;G mspg;Ngd;> NkYk; vdf;F gf;ftpisT
VjhtJ Vw;gl;lhy; Ma;thsUf;F cldbahf njhptpg;Ngd;.

,e;j Ma;tpy; gpwhpd; eph;ge;jkpd;wp vd; nrhe;j tpUg;gj;jpd; Nghpy; jhd;

gq;F ngWfpNwd; kw;Wk; ehd; ,e;j Muha;r;rpapypUe;J ve;j NeuKk; gpd;
thq;fyhk; vd;gijAk; mjdhy; ve;j ghjpg;Gk; Vw;glhJ vd;gijAk; ehd;
Ghpe;J nfhz;Nld;.

,e;j Ma;tpd; Kbtpid ntspapLk; NghJ vdJ ngaNuh>

milahsNkh ntspaplg;glhJ vd;gij mwpe;J nfhz;Nld;. ,e;j Ma;tpw;f;F
Njitg;gl;lhy; ,uj;jg; ghpNrhjidAk; nra;Jf; nfhs;s rk;kjpf;fpNwd;.

,e;j Ma;tpy; gq;Nfw;Fk; nghOJ VNjDk; re;Njfk; vw;gl;lhy;> clNd

Ma;thsiu njhlh;G nfhs;s Ntz;Lk; vd;gij mwpe;J nfhz;Nld;.

,r;Ra xg;Gjy; gbtj;jpy; ifnaOj;jpLtjd; *yk; ,jpYs;s midj;J

tptuq;fSk; vdf;F njspthf tpsf;fg;gl;lJ vd;gij njhptpf;fpNwd;;. ,r;Ra
xg;Gjy; gbtj;jpd; xU efy; vdf;F nfhLf;fg;gLk; vd;W njhpe;J nfhz;Nld;.

gq;Nfw;ghsh; ifnahg;gk;: Ma;thsh; ifnahg;gk; :

Njjp: Njjp: