BMJ

World at Work: Brazilian Ragpickers

Author(s): M. C. da Silva, A. G. Fassa, C. E. Siqueira and D. Kriebel
Source: Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 62, No. 10 (Oct., 2005), pp. 736-740
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27732613 .
Accessed: 20/05/2014 15:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Occupational and Environmental
Medicine.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.146.219.31 on Tue, 20 May 2014 15:38:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

736 WORLD ATWORK

their

compare

Ragpicking

at work:

World

plish

Brazilian

tage
stratified

ragpickers

M C da Silva, A G Fassa, C E Siqueira, D Kriebel

A jobwith contradictions: environmental
workers of the informal sector

random

of

sample
of the

this, we were
a recent
of

stewards and exploited

Federal

entire

the

accom

city. To
to take

able

advan
on

based

survey

of

sample
=
(n
3182),

the

entire
used

which

city population
of the same
survey
many
This
approved
study was

Committee

and

activities

physical
a

to
symptoms
adult
population

items.9
the Ethics

by

School of the

of the Medical
of Pelotas.

University

RESULTS
waste

Solid

concern

environmental
the

throughout
of handling

work

The
involves

an

is

diverse

of many
prevention
as elsewhere,
In Brazil,
of goods
of waste,

consumption
volume
the

tion

on

technologies
the
public,

the

has

effects

on

labour

must

but

its
enterprise,
the physical

when

assessing
environmental

impact.
combined

High

unemployment,
amounts
proliferating
a

and

growing
for

the work
In

of

the

(catadores

de

separate,

classify,
materials.

recyclable
how many

lixo

in 2003,

500 000

(Forum

2?03).

The majority

rely solely or primarily

their
and
livelihood,

than

twice

Brazilian

government
which
wage,

living
in

the

collect

the

on
have

new

and

force

is responsible
of all Brazilian

Their

work,

ing

in almost

benefits,
to become

entirely
any

or

in

the world,
8
nium.7
They
landfills,

help

support

and feed
work.7

in

of

about

for handling

controls,
has

food

at

corners,
Nacional

growing

recycled
informal

or
and

cities,

(F?rum
This

relatively
labour
a

large
materials.
and

lack

employment
led Brazil

largest
recyclers
of alumi
particular,
in
cities
reduce waste
recycling

their families

to

and

regulations,
one
of the

the

by

dumps

street

apparently

less

a minimum

materials

2003).

for

ragpicking
incomes

comes

areas

of

of

non-ragpickers
the same neigh

similar

gender,
Data

of
years
schooling.
a survey
collected
through
on occupational,
questions

that

and

health

behavioural,

sample

age,
were

included

sociodemo
factors.

and

ragpickers

our

we

comparison,
of

and

non-ragpickers
came
from
poor
to
it was
also
useful

both

neighbourhoods,

considerably
than
their
pations.
ragpickers'
or other
only
Three

companies,

through

ragpickers,
were
not

our

had
ragpickers
conditions
living

this,
poorer

occu
with
other
neighbours
most
For
of
(54%)
example,
were
of wood,
houses
metal,

to
poor materials,
compared
of their
houses.
neighbours'
as many
as
times
ragpickers

24%

non-ragpickers
(15% versus

difference
versus

5%).

ragpickers
house,

no

had
5%);

water

running
a
was

there

similar

for lack of electricity

per

Eighteen

had

compared

no
to

cent

toilet
only

3%

(11%
of

in
of

the

their
their

neighbours.

Tobte ? Soc?odemographic characteristics of ragpickers, non-ragpickers, and a

sample of the general population of Pel?las

Monthly

Cidadania,

live near

and

bourhoods,

study
in
years
in southern

very poorest
on
the street,

in

of these workers

as

e Cidadania,

share

000

city of 320
For
2004.
sample
residents

of

17

than

were

the

interviews,

known

ragpickers
estimated
study

riverbanks,
dumpsites,
areas
and
residential
Lixo

is not

level defined

often
They
low
income
recyclable

the

as

Lixo

who

in

including adults and

children

US$173.

created

It

in

for

today,
ragpickers
in Portuguese)
collect,
and
of
sell all types

work
people
a recent
but

Brazil,

waste,

of
rapid
expansion
and
trash.
selling

collecting
cities

Brazilian

solid

Brazil,

graphic,
Because

with

market

global
have

materials,

recycled
conditions

of

identified

benefits,

a cross-sectional
older

Pelotas,

990
involved
survey
ragpickers'
455 were
of whom
ragpickers
subjects,
535
and
1).
(table
non-ragpickers
our
Because
household
involved
survey

The

living
entirely
studied.
Despite

conducted

ragpickers

of workers,

do

conditions.

living

METHODS
We

environment.57

who

and

increasing

health

be weighed
and
societal

full

their work

questions
collec
inadequate
waste
disposal

the

those

the

generated

many
presents
new
productive

Recycling
like any

its

the

and

is

activities.1-4

raising

of
impacts
traditional

and

waste

this

focus

huge
about

world.

and

hazards,

to
is
article
of
this
purpose
and
describe
the working
conditions
of ragpick
health
hazards
for a sample
ers
in one
Brazilian
city,
highlighting
The

income, multiples of minimum

wage($US)
Less than ffie minimum
.-,'
1-2x($174)

2-3x($261)
3-4x($348)
>4x
Ago
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69

years
years
years
years
years

Schooling
0 years
1-4 years
5-8 years
9 or more years
Marital status
No
Yes
Skin colour
White
Non-white
Gender
Male
Female
Smoking status
Never smoker
?x-smoker
Current smoker

.?

:($87)

67.0
2?.8
4.0
1.6
0.6

25.7
36,6
19.5
8.0
10.2

14.0
25.3
18.0
12.6
30,1

31.6
27.0
24.0
10.8
6.6

26.4
31.0
24.7
13.1
4.8

22.6
21.4
21.0
16.7
18.3

22.4
43.7
30.8
3.1

12.5
45.1
38.5
3.9

1.0
20.6
33.5
44.9

36.7
63.3

38.7
61.3

38.7
61.3

52.5
47.5

68.4
31.6

84.7
15.3

62.9
37.1

63.9
36.1

43.2
56.B

58.5

40.9
14.8
44.3

52.4
27.9
19,7

their

www.occenvmed.com

This content downloaded from 128.146.219.31 on Tue, 20 May 2014 15:38:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WORLD ATWORK 737

cardboard,
and

paper/
plastics,
and
iron. These

aluminium,
are collected

materials

/?ft

are:

order,

decreasing

from

doorways
and

streets

the

of households

and

busi

to some
location
brought
where
they can be separated.
Separation
in or just outside
of
is often
performed
nesses,

the

ragpickers'

land

along

sites

or

is

used
cart,

gloves,
The

(86%) per
ragpickers
labour
intensive
separa

of materials

from
own
they
are often of very poor condition.
back
They bring garbage
ragpickers
waste
it, ana there are often piles of non-recyclable
dumped
nearby.

Figure 1 Houses
house to separate

Almost
were

of

half

(47%) of the ragpickers

non-white,

compared
and
only

non-ragpickers,
Pelotas
general

to within
ragpickers
the
differences
ing,
our

had
ragpickers
of schooling,

non-ragpicker
In the general

while
than

the

work

summarised

In

to

begun

of cooperatives
their
improve
Pelotas,

only

the
ragpickers
surveyed
to a cooperative,
however.

involves

the

children.

The

for

food

wastes,

whole

family,
including
select
edible
ragpickers
own
(fruits,
consumption

their

canned

produce,

from

vegetables)
collected.

wastes

organic

recycled

can be
of ragpickers
process
in three phases:
collection,
and
sale of materials.
The
collected

it (30%).
manually,
and often

are
materials
transported
Recyclable
to local
from
the ragpickers'
households
man"
"middle
businesses
that purchase

work

Ragpickers'
The

to

is performed
process
without
the use of any
tools,

in

their

(sucateiros

products
collections

weighing;
on
cash,

in

(fig 3). The ragpickers bring

Portuguese)

to

these

businesses

for

in
they are paid
directly
the basis
of the current
market
and

income

of

(SD
reported
income

In

Brazil,
in multi

compared

income
wage,

rag

minimum
US$86.67

per
of ragpick
than
twice
the

cent

per
less

to

compared
and 39% of

the

62%

of

popula

(table
1).
to start
age for ragpickers
was
this
32.5
occupation
13.6 years),
and
they reported

average
in

working

years
(SD
a median

time

and

ragpickers
40 years

that

many

relatively
worked

bours

of

6.8%

separation,
most
commonly

schooling.

US$81.64

government's

non-ragpickers
tion of Pelotas

work

encourage
to try
of ragpickers,
conditions.8
working

belonged

have

governments
the formation

(56%) or burning

trash bins
This

sample,
only
one
of
year

$170.71).

often

(approximately
four
Ninety

minimum

which

to

a single
12% of the

completed
while
only
had no
sample

non-ragpickers
twice
the average

month).
ers reported

Most

we

striking
22% of

Fully

monthly
about

are

of

The

some

not

SD

($188.53,
incomes
ples

of
the

city

copper wire
(removing
in their
for
appliances
example)
of whatever
homes;
they dispose
cannot
it in regular
sell by dumping

(table 1).

average
was

wage

were

population
less
than

reported

schooling

$62.76),
more

of

year of school
so marked
that

in education.

year

pickers

one

retained

samples
differences

The

32%

population.
Although
to match
non-ragpickers

attempted

1%

to
15%

Many

to the

bicycles
their

carry

of

form
tion

16%
most

to carry mate
followed
by the

pushcart
(fig 2). Occasionally
be used or the ragpickers
may
loads
themselves.
The majority
the most

is

worn;

rarely

wearing
facemasks.

equipment
the horse

is

rials

old

Personal

licensed.

equipment

reported
and
1%

boots,
common

and

(fig 1). This process

regulated

protective
22%
only

abandoned

rivers,

roadways,

industrial
not

or on

houses,

on

the job of three years.

are between
18
(57%)
old.
These
data
suggest

have

taken

an

day

of

average
than
the
their

(8 hours/day).

this

up
The

recently.
is less

.""r-***

of

work

ragpickers
6 hours/day,

average

non-ragpickers

reported
neigh

Figure 2
Ragpickers
transport waste.

at work

in the streets of Pelotas.

Pushcarts

are

commonly

used

to collect and

www.occenvmed.com

This content downloaded from 128.146.219.31 on Tue, 20 May 2014 15:38:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

738 WORLD ATWORK

more

serious

ter (27%) of

#*'

as

among

with

needles,

and

(fig 5).
include
risks
as

traffic,
often

gauze,

traffic

from work
trash

When

hours.

with

combined
traffic

with

poor
compliance
and
high workload,
is a substantial
there

collec

coincide

with

laws,

of work,
pace
risk of ragpickers
Some
of the most

fast

hit by traffic.
being
common
to workers
injuries
are cuts and
solid wastes

who

handle

punctures

by
of
Many
sharp
objects.
are caused
by inadequate
injuries
6
of trash.3
storage
from
the
result
hazards
Psychosocial
cans,

glass,
these

""2^si^*iiiS

wastes

hospital

syringes,

Safety hazards
ing amid
heavy
tion
schedules

??N

reported

wastes

other

intense

a quar

the ragpickers

contact

having
such

I2
About

diseases."

and

and
long
irregular
often
population,
In addition,
work.1'
for

survival,

the

of

workdays
including
the daily

uncertainty

this
night

struggle
the
about

for a better
the lack of prospects
and
discrimination
low
life,
wages,
job
on
their
all can have
impacts
negative
health.
About
mental
50% of the rag
felt
discriminated
interviewed
pickers
future,

Figure 3 A ragpicker, on his horse-drawn

his material,
where a middle man will weigh

rate.
food

cart. He has brought material

and pay him cash for it.

in

be paid
they may
to cash.
in addition

Sometimes,
products

ers

Biological
in our

disposable

faced
hazards
by
ragpickers
Ergonomie
on foot,6
include walking
long distances
carts
in awk
and
often
pulling
heavy
as

ward

positions
waste.
separate

Most

(91%)

small
even
mixed

and

ing

reported
and

motion,

repetitive

frequent

collect

they

survey
diapers,

reported
included

clinics,
hospital
with

residential

ragpick

bandages,

paper,
or
needles

pharmacies,
wastes,
may

microorganisms

by

point,

toilet

napkins,
disposable
In addition,
and condoms.

hazards

Ragpickers'

hazards

to a collection

sanitary

syringes,
wastes
from

and

labs,

also

be

trash

and

responsible

and
found
carry
for

against
by society.
their non-ragpicker
this way.
feeling

Job related
The
pain
was

reported
in the
similar

non-ragpicker

In contrast,

14% of
reported

neighbours

injuries
prevalence
12 months
among

of

low

survey
and
their

ragpickers

(49.2%

neighbours

back

to

prior

versus

nearly

as many
(84%) reported frequently
loads. Their
carrying heavy (>10kg)
frequent

seems

motion

repetitive

defining

40% more
reported
than
non-ragpickers

in

often

to be

as

characteristic,

Ragpickers

was

it

Non-ragpickers

ragpickers
ratio

(prevalence

interval

(PR) 1.4, 95% confidence

(CI)

cent
four
of
per
1.5).
Fifty
also
whole
ragpickers
reported
frequent
from
often
body
vibration?probably
1.3

to

carts

their

bouncing

over

hazards

result

streets

city

(fig 4).
Chemical
hazardous
pal

solid

substances

found

which

wastes,

come

into

inadvertently
common
The most
oils

batteries,
herbicides,
products,
containers

are:

and

under
of

car

drugs,

the

and

may
with.
regular

insecticides/

paints,

cosmetics,

cant

ragpickers
contact

greases,

solvents,

from
in munici

and

cleaning
aerosol

A
pressure.10
signifi
as
the wastes
is classified

portion
can
and
be
harmful
dangerous
human
health
and
the environment.11
in Pelotas

Ragpickers

of
prevalence
those
products,
cant

contact
and

differences

compared

to

bours (fig 5).

in
their

to

a high
reported
of
with
many
we
found
signifi
these

non-ragpicker

exposures
neigh

4?

Figure 4
represent

Prevalence
of ergonomie
exposures
among
or
percentages
reporting "generally
always"
95% confidence
limits on prevalence.
representing

jt

Bars
ragpickers and non-ragpickers.
exposed
during work, with whiskers

www.occenvmed.com

This content downloaded from 128.146.219.31 on Tue, 20 May 2014 15:38:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WORLD ATWORK 739

should

Ragpickers

on how
health

Non-ragpickers

materials

ment,

safe means
not

of

them.

ultimate

gradually
kets
into
will

this

their

of

sector.

recycling
work

important

respected.
conditions
of

be

Improving
Brazilian

eco
is

labour.

cooperative

programmes
formal
labour

introduce

and

the

dan

parents
to eliminate

government

assisted

the

in

engaged
too
is clearly
the
Improving

goal
other

and
or

sored

did
we

yet

way
form of child

probably
this unacceptable
movement

equip
and

children
that

of
prospects
an important

The

range of
should

survey

and

children,

for

gerous
nomic

Our

transport.

many
work

recycling

full

devices,

handling

include

observed

the

issues.
safety
They
to personal
protective

and
access

have

as on

as well

of wastes,
Ragpickers

education

receive

to properly handle and dispose

spon
to
is
mar

Only

then

recognised
the working

will
ragpickers
between
coordinated
actions
require
to restore
civil
and governments
society
their

social

Occup

value

Environ Med

and

human

dignity.

2005;62:736-740.

doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020164

Authors' affiliations
M C da Silva, A G Fassa, School of Medicine,
Figure 5

Prevalence

of physical,

and biological

chemical,

exposures

among

non

and

ragpickers

ragpickers.

but

47.5%),
found

well

in

above

the

the

general

under

prevalence
population
in the
pain

The prevalence
of
(35.1%).
lower extremities
lower
(upper
leg, knee,
was
in ragpickers
leg, and ankle)
higher
versus
than
in non-ragpickers
(45.1%
=
In contrast,
there was
38.3%,
p
0.03).
no difference
in the prevalence
of upper
extremity
in

pain
assess

shoulder,
elbow,
(neck,
wrist)
two groups.
We
these
did not
two outcomes
in the
the
latter
of Pelotas.

population

believed

per
Twenty
work
related

their

job was

cent

dangerous.
had
having

The most

reported
accident
the previous
common
among
injuries

who

a workplace

had

year.
those

were

injury

cuts

CONCLUSIONS
journal
United
hard
contrast
a single

at Work

described
States
to

refuse
and

conceive
in working

are

they

to
important
informal
workers,

article in this
collectors

in the

It would
be
Europe.4
of a more
striking
conditions
than

within

is provided
by a
and Brazilian

occupation
of the Dutch
comparison
in these
workers
described

two

articles.

To begin to address the dire conditions

note

is

that

entirely
in even
the minimum
guaran
lacking
are
tees
in regulated
found
jobs. There
formal
in refuse
in
also
collection
jobs
3
Brazil2
and while
these workers
may
face
somewhat
risks
than
their
greater
Dutch

colleagues,
off than

better
The

tive,

as well

the population,
disposal

problem.

do,

and

public

this

as a bigger
are

Ragpickers

in

efforts

promising
Brazilian

waste

and

the collection

fairer

price

latter
for

trucks,

number

the

of

former

to

and

sorting work,
so that
can
a
get
they
their materials
by having

the ability to sell directly to recycling

industries instead of the local middle
man.

in

the John E. Fogarty

Institutes
of the US National
from

interests:

none

REFERENCES

discri

that they

to promote
cooperatives
as a way
to improve
of ragpickers,
their
certain
lives
and
them
limited
provide
15
Some
benefits.8
for example,
cities,
have
the
with
cooperatives
provided

improve
and
the

"Work and Health

of Health
Competing

cities

warehouses

and Mexico"
International Center

Brazil

for

a very
relevant
they
play
are
some
There
role.14

yet
health

of Massachusetts,

to: Mrs M C da Silva, Post

Correspondence
in Epidemiology,
Federal
Program
graduate
University of Pelotas. Brazil, Av. Duque de
250, Third floor, Pelotas, Rio Grande
Caxias,
do Sul 96030-002,
Brazil; cozzensa@terra.
com.br

#D43TW005749,

work

suffering

against for the work

minated

con

perspec
useful
very
that
regulations

and

University

Lowell,USA

for the
support: CAPES, Coordination
of Higher
Education
Personnel,
Improvement
Brazil.
grant
Partially
supported
by

management
serve
a

discouraged
even
greater

Environment,

Financial

From

contradictions.

ragpickers
to society,

C E Siqueira, D Kriebel, DepartmentofWork

considerably

ragpickers.
in Brazil
"system"

recycling

inadvertently
mean
would

are

they
the

complicated
an environmental

function

(59%), scrapes (15%), hits/contusions

(10%), and punctures
(9%). The most
affected body parts were
the hands
(50%), lower extremities
(20%), and
feet (8%).

A recent World

most

perhaps

it

labour,

ragpickers

tains

Eighty per cent of ragpickers believed

they could get injured on the job, and
71%

which

of Social Medicine,
Post-graduate
in Epidemiology,
Federal University
Program
of Pelotas, Brazil

Department

1 Poulsen OM, Breum NO, Ebbehoj N, et al.

Collection of domestic waste. Review of
occupational health problems and their possible
causes. So* Total Environ 1995;170:1-19.
2 Robazzi MLCC, Moriya TM, Favero M, et al.
Garbage collectors: occupational accidents and
coefficients of frequency and severity per
accident. Ann Agrie Environ Med 1997;4:91-6.
3 Velloso MP, Santos EM, An jos LA. The labor
process and work-related accidents among
garbage collectors in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [in
Portuguese]. Cadernos de Saude P?blica
1997,13:693-700.
Kuijer PPFM, Frings-Dresen MHW. World at
work: Refuse collectors. Occup Environ Med
2004;61:282-6.
is
5 R?go RCF, Barreto ML, Killinger CL.What
garbage, anyway? The opinions of women from
an
ina large Brazilian city
outlying neighborhood
[in Portuguese]. Cadernos de Saude P?blica

2002,18:1583-92.

www.occenvmed.com

This content downloaded from 128.146.219.31 on Tue, 20 May 2014 15:38:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

740 WORLD ATWORK

6

Ferreira JA. Solid waste and nosocomial waste:

an ethical discussion [in Portuguese]. Cadernos
de Saude P?blica 1995; 11:314-20.
7 Galderoni S. Billions wasted in the garbage [in
Portuguese], 4th edn. S?o Paulo: Humanitas
2003.
8 Conceic?o MM. Garbage entrepreneurs: a

Portuguese]. Cadernos de Saude P?blica

2004;20:377-85.
10 Ferreira JA, Anjos LA. Public and occupational
health issues related to municipal solid waste
[in Portuguese]. Cadernos de Saude
management
P?blica 2001;17:689-96.
11 Kupchella CD, Hyland MC. Environmental
science?living within the system of nature.
London: Prentice-Hall International, 1993.
12 Collins CHK. The microbiological hazards of
municipal and clinical wastes. J Appl Bacteriol
1992;73:1-6.

modernity paradox [in Portuguese]. Campinas:

Atomo, 2003.
Silva MC, Fassa AG, Valle NCJ. Chronic low back
pain in a Southern Brazilian adult population:
prevalence and associated factors [in

Clinical

?Call

Evidence

13 Carranza AC, Zelaya L, Iglesias S. El Salvador?

child labour in the garbage dumps: a rapid
assessment [in Spanish]. Geneva:
International
2002.
Labour Organisation,
14 Porto MFS, Junc? DCM, Gon?alves RS, et al.
Garbage, work, and health: a case study of
at the metropolitan landfill in Rio
garbage pickers
de Janeiro, Brazil [in Portuguese]. Cadernos de
Saude P?blica 2004;20:1503-14.
15 Junc? DCM, Gon?alves M?, Azevedo VG. The
hand that creates from garbage [in Portuguese].
Niteroi: Universidade Federal Fluminense, 2000.

for contributors

Clinical Evidence isa regularly updated evidence-based

journal available worldwide both as

version
and on
paper
contributors.
Contributors

the

internet.

needs

are

healthcare

evidence-based

and

medicine

Clinical

Evidence

to recruit

number

of

new

or
with experience
professionals
epidemiologists
to write
in a concise
and
structured
way.

the ability

in

for which we are currently seeking authors:

Child health: nocturnal enuresis

Areas

Eye disorders: bacterial conjunctivitis

Male health: prostate cancer (metastatic)
Women's

health:
are

we

However,

pre-menstrual

always

syndrome;

looking

in

pyelonephritis
so do

for others,

not

let this

women

non-pregnant

list

you.

discourage

Being a contributor involves:

search (performed by in-house Information
Selecting from a validated, screened
Specialists) epidemiologically sound studies for inclusion.
Documenting your decisions about which studies to include on an inclusion and exclusion
form, which we keep on file.
Writing the text to a highly structured template (about 1500-3000 words), using evidence
from the final studies chosen, within 8?10 weeks of
receiving the literature search.
Working with Clinical Evidence editors to ensure that the final text meets epidemiol?gica!
and

style

standards.

the \ex\ every

Updating

six months

usina

new,

any

sound

evidence

that becomes

available.

The Clinical Evidence in-house team will conduct the searches for contributors;
your task is
simply to filter out high quality studies and incorporate them in the existing text.
To

the

expand

topic

to

include

a new

about

question

once

every

12-18

months.

Ifyou would like to become a contributor for Clinical Evidence or

require more information
about what this involves please send your contact details and a copy of your CV,
clearly
stating the clinical area you are interested in, to Klara Brunnhuber (kbrunnhuber@
bmjgroup.com).

Call

for peer

Clinical
interest
reviewers
medicine.

reviewers

Evidence

also

needs
areas

in the clinical
are
As

healthcare
a peer

to recruit
stated

a number

above,
or

professionals
reviewer
you would

and

of
also

new
others

reviewers
with an
peer
specifically
to
related
Peer
practice.
general

with experience
?n evidence-based
epidemiologists
on the clinical
be asked
for your views
relevance,

validity, and accessibility of specific topics within the journal, and their usefulness to the
intended audience (international generalists and healthcare professionals, possibly with
limited statistical knowledge). Topics are usually 1500-3000 words in length and we would
ask

you

to

review

between

2-5

topics

per

year.

The

peer

review

process

takes

place

throughout the year, and our turnaround time for each review is ideally 10-14 days.
If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for Clinical Evidence, please
complete

the

peer

review

questionnaire

at www.clinicalevidence.com

or

contact

Brunnhuber (kbrunnhuber@bmjgroup.com).

vyww.occenvmed.com

This content downloaded from 128.146.219.31 on Tue, 20 May 2014 15:38:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Klara