ArticleCureus2021
3D-Printed Personal Protective Face Shields During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Canadian Frontline Workers.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, three-dimensional (3D) printing was utilized to rapidly produce face shields for frontline workers in response to an acute shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, we examine the perceived utility and performance of 3D-printed (3DP) face shields through a survey of frontline workers in Ontario, Canada. Methodology Frontline workers who received community-produced 3DP face shields from the Canadian initiative "3DPPE GTHA" (March-December 2020) were invited to participate in the study. The survey response rate was 54.3%. Of 63 respondents, 39 were patient-facing and 24 were community-facing frontline workers. Participants were asked to rate performance measures in 10 categories on a five-point Likert scale. Data were categorized by organization and frontline worker type, and a t-test was used to determine statistically significant differences among subgroups. Results The mean preference for 3DP face shields among respondents was 3.2 out of 5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1-4.3). Community-facing respondents reported significantly greater overall utility scores for 3DP face shields (3.58, 95% CI: 3.38-3.79) compared to respondents working in a patient-facing profession (2.95, 95% CI: 2.77-3.13; p < 0.05). However, no differences were reported in portability and compatibility with other PPE. Respondents from organizations with large service volumes reported significantly lower overall utility scores (2.67, 95% CI: 2.44-2.89) than respondents in organizations with smaller service volumes (3.45, 95% CI: 3.28-3.62; p < 0.05). Conclusions Community-facing frontline workers and those from smaller service volume organizations endorse higher utility for 3DP face shields than patient-facing frontline workers. Despite this, frontline workers generally rate 3DP face shields positively. 3DP face shields are a viable option for personal and community use and can be used to supplement supply in a community setting.
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.