Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33472794›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Frontline healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal.

Katarina Hoernke, Nehla Djellouli, Lily Andrews, Sasha Lewis-Jackson, Louisa Manby, Sam Martin, Samantha Vanderslott, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

144 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Front Line Nurses: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Hardship, coping, and joy: ACPs' experiences of working through the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Katarina HoernkeInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4825-980X
Nehla DjellouliInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4200-2314
Lily AndrewsInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9643-0192
Sasha Lewis-JacksonDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6141-9399
Louisa ManbyInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0442-2177
Sam MartinOxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4466-8374
Samantha VanderslottOxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8685-7758
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK c.vindrola@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7859-1646

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

designA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145 000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).

participantsInterview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.

resultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.

conclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

Indexed as

COVID-19FemaleGuidelines as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansInfection ControlInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalInterviews as TopicMalePersonal Protective EquipmentQualitative ResearchTertiary Care CentersUnited KingdomCOVID-19health services administration & managementpublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID33472794
PMCPMC7818840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.