ArticleThe Journal of hospital infection2021
Evaluation of a personal protective equipment support programme for staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in London.
Article in The Journal of hospital infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to Enhance COVID-19 Pandemic Health Literacy in Health Professionals: Systematic Review.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding Personal Protective Equipment Use in Interdisciplinary Medical Settings: Design Explorations for Just-in-Time Compliance Alerts: Improving PPE Practices in Medical Settings Through Alert Design.DIS. Designing Interactive Systems (Conference) · 2025Article
- Coping behavior toward occupational health risks among construction workers: determinant identification using the COM-B model and data mining analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of donning and doffing personal protective equipment education using video debriefing among Korean undergraduate nursing students.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Identifying a competency improvement strategy for infection prevention and control professionals: A rapid systematic review and cluster analysis.Health care science · 2024Review
- A individually randomized controlled trial comparing Healer-led vs. clinician- led training to improve personal protective equipment use among traditional healers in South Africa.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Occupational relationships and working duties of nursing management staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative analysis of survey responses.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Article
- Psychometric properties of public trust in Covid-19 control and prevention policies questionnaire.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Fostering Nursing Staff Competence in Personal Protective Equipment Education during COVID-19: A Mobile-Video Online Learning Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Hand Hygiene Behavior in Healthcare Workers: A Structural Equation Modeling.Psychology research and behavior management · 2022Article
- Tools for the evaluation of the psychological impact of COVID-19: A practical guide for Family physicians and Primary Care Practitioners.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- Healer-led vs. clinician-led training to improve personal protective equipment use among traditional healers in South Africa: a randomized controlled trial protocol.Global health action · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has presented an enormous challenge to healthcare providers worldwide. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been essential to ensure staff and patient safety. The 'PPE Helper Programme' was developed at a large London hospital group to counteract suboptimal PPE practice. Based on a behaviour change model of capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B), the programme provided PPE support, advice and education to ward staff.
aimEvaluation of the PPE Helper Programme.
methodsClinical and non-clinical ward staff completed a questionnaire informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model. The questionnaire was available in paper and electronic versions. Quantitative responses were analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics, and free-text responses were analysed thematically.
findingsOver a 6-week period, PPE helpers made 268 ward visits. Overall, 261 questionnaires were available for analysis. Across the Trust, 68% of respondents reported having had contact with a PPE helper. Staff who had encountered a PPE helper responded significantly more positively to a range of statements about using PPE than staff who had not encountered a PPE helper. Black and minority ethnic staff were significantly more anxious regarding the adequacy of PPE. Non-clinical and redeployed staff (e.g. domestic staff) were most positive about the impact of PPE helpers. Free-text comments showed that staff found the PPE Helper Programme supportive and would have liked it earlier in the pandemic.
conclusionThe PPE Helper Programme is a feasible and beneficial intervention for providing support, advice and education to ward staff during infectious disease outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.