Dataset Information

The Physical and Psychological Effects of Personal Protective Equipment on Health Care Workers in Wuhan, China: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The purpose of this study was to rapidly quantify the safety measures regarding donning and doffing personal protective equipment, complaints of discomfort caused by wearing personal protective equipment, and the psychological perceptions of health care workers in hospitals in Wuhan, China, responding to the outbreak. METHODS:A cross-sectional online questionnaire design was used Data were collected from March 14, 2020, to March 16, 2020, in Wuhan, China. Descriptive statistics and ?2 analyses testing were used. RESULTS:Standard nosocomial infection training could significantly decrease the occurrence of infection (3.6% vs 13.0%, ?2 = 4.47, P < 0.05). Discomfort can be classified into 7 categories. Female sex (66.0% vs 50.5%, ?2 = 6.37), occupation (62.7% vs 30.8%, ?2 = 5.33), working at designated hospitals (44.8% vs 26.7%, ?2 = 5.17) or in intensive care units (70.4% vs 57.9%, ?2 = 3.88), and working in personal protective equipment for > 4 hours (62.2% vs 39.2%, ?2 = 9.17) led to more complaints about physical discomfort or increased occurrence of pressure sores (all P < 0.05). Psychologically, health care workers at designated hospitals (60.0% vs 42.1%, ?2 = 4.97) or intensive care units (55.9% vs 41.5%, ?2 = 4.40) (all P < 0.05) expressed different rates of pride. DISCUSSION:Active training on infection and protective equipment could reduce the infection risk. Working for long hours increased the occurrence of discomfort and skin erosion. Reducing the working hours and having adequate protective products and proper psychological interventions may be beneficial to relieve discomfort.

SUBMITTER: Xia W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7522005 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Physical and Psychological Effects of Personal Protective Equipment on Health Care Workers in Wuhan, China: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Xia Wei W Fu Lin L Liao Haihan H Yang Chan C Guo Haipeng H Bian Zhouyan Z

Journal of emergency nursing 20200929 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>The purpose of this study was to rapidly quantify the safety measures regarding donning and doffing personal protective equipment, complaints of discomfort caused by wearing personal protective equipment, and the psychological perceptions of health care workers in hospitals in Wuhan, China, responding to the outbreak.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional online questionnaire design was used Data were collected from March 14, 2020, to March 16, 2020, in Wuhan, China. Descriptive ...[more]

PMID: 32994038

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) caring for COVID-19 infected patients are exposed to stressful and traumatic events with potential for severe and sustained adverse mental and physical health consequences. Our aim was to assess the magnitude of physical and mental health outcomes of HCWs due to the prolonged use of personal protective equipment (PPE) treating COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis cross-sectional study assessed the symptoms of stress, anxiety, insomnia, and psychological resilience using the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics (SAVE) scale, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Resilience Scale (RS), respectively, in Italy between 1st February and 31st March 2022. The physical outcomes reported included vertigo, dyspnea, nausea, micturition desire, retroauricular pain, thirst, discomfort at work, physical fatigue, and thermal stress. The relationships between prolonged PPE use and psychological outcomes and physical discomforts were analyzed using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). We calculated the factor mean scores and a binary outcome to measure study outcomes.FindingsWe found that 23% of the respondents reported stress related symptoms, 33% anxiety, 43% moderate to severe insomnia, and 67% reported moderate to very low resilience. The GLMs suggested that older people (>55 years old) are less likely to suffer from stress compared to younger people (<35 y.o); conversely, HCW aged more than 35 years are more inclined to suffer from insomnia than younger people (<35 y.o). Female HCW reported a lower probability of resilience than males. University employed HCWs were less likely to report anxiety than those who worked in a community hospital. The odds of suffering from insomnia for social workers was significantly higher than for other HCWs. Female HCW>3 years old, enrolled in training programs for nursing, social work, technical training and other healthcare professionals increased the probability of reported physical discomforts. HCW that worked on non COVID-19 wards and used PPE for low-medium exposure level, were at lower risks for lasting physical side effects as compared to the HCW who worked in high-risk PPE intense, COVID-19 environments.InterpretationThe study suggests that frontline HCWs who had extensive PPE exposure while directly engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, and care for patients with COVID-19 are at significant risks for lasting physical and psychological harm and distress.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the protective effects of appropriate personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare professionals who provided care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignCross sectional study.SettingFour hospitals in Wuhan, China.Participants420 healthcare professionals (116 doctors and 304 nurses) who were deployed to Wuhan by two affiliated hospitals of Sun Yat-sen University and Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University for 6-8 weeks from 24 January to 7 April 2020. These study participants were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment to deliver healthcare to patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and were involved in aerosol generating procedures. 77 healthcare professionals with no exposure history to covid-19 and 80 patients who had recovered from covid-19 were recruited to verify the accuracy of antibody testing.Main outcome measuresCovid-19 related symptoms (fever, cough, and dyspnoea) and evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, defined as a positive test for virus specific nucleic acids in nasopharyngeal swabs, or a positive test for IgM or IgG antibodies in the serum samples.ResultsThe average age of study participants was 35.8 years and 68.1% (286/420) were women. These study participants worked 4-6 hour shifts for an average of 5.4 days a week; they worked an average of 16.2 hours each week in intensive care units. All 420 study participants had direct contact with patients with covid-19 and performed at least one aerosol generating procedure. During the deployment period in Wuhan, none of the study participants reported covid-19 related symptoms. When the participants returned home, they all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acids and IgM or IgG antibodies (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 0.7%).ConclusionBefore a safe and effective vaccine becomes available, healthcare professionals remain susceptible to covid-19. Despite being at high risk of exposure, study participants were appropriately protected and did not contract infection or develop protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Healthcare systems must give priority to the procurement and distribution of personal protective equipment, and provide adequate training to healthcare professionals in its use.

Project description:In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.

Project description:ObjectivesEffective implementation of prevention and control actions by health professionals is substantial to contain the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study aimed to assess health care worker's practice of using personal protective equipment and psychological preparedness against the COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern Ethiopia.MethodsA facility-based cross-sectional study design was used. The health care workers (HCW) who were working in the selected health facilities were randomly selected. Variables that had p-value of < 0.15 were transformed to multivariable logistic regression model. Finally, the significance level was declared at the p-value < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 418 HCWs were randomly selected and included in this study. The study participants mean age was 27.96 years with a ±5.6SD. HCWs who were male (adjusted odds ratio(AOR) = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.29-3.79), regularly using sanitizer, accessing COVID-19 management guideline (AOR = 2.83, 95% CI: 1.46-5.47), trained on COVID-19 prevention methods (AOR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.4-4.7), hopeless of eventually getting COVID-19 at workplace (AOR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.13-3.28), and feeling unsafe at work when using standard precautions (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27-0.79) were associated with good PPE using compared to their counterparts. Moreover, nursing/midwifery professionals practiced good personal protective equipment compared to physicians (AOR = 3.7, 95% CI: 1.8-7.7).ConclusionThe study demonstrated that being a male, being a nurse/midwifery, regularly sanitizing hands/medical equipment, having COVID-19 management guidelines, trained on COVID-19, and feeling of eventually getting COVID-19 at workplace had a positive association with PPE utilization. Besides, the study revealed that not feeling safe at work when using standard precautions was negatively associated with PPE utilization of HCWs. Therefore, the prevention priorities should be given to frontline HCWs by providing all possible support and strictly implementing the prevention and control guidelines of COVID-19 to prevent the health system from collapse.

Dataset Information

The Physical and Psychological Effects of Personal Protective Equipment on Health Care Workers in Wuhan, China: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Publications

The Physical and Psychological Effects of Personal Protective Equipment on Health Care Workers in Wuhan, China: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets