ArticleApplied ergonomics2022
PPE fit of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Applied ergonomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using a basic life support stress-test to assess the influence of ethanol-based hand rubs nitril gloves and of physically demanding clinical tasks on personal protective equipment fit (GLOVDIS-1) - a pilot Manikin study.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2026Article
- Design, manufacturing, and testing of 3D-printed fittings for ergonomic helmet CPAP devices: a case study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The relative effectiveness of personal protective equipment and environmental controls in protecting healthcare workers from Covid-19.Annals of work exposures and health · 2025Article
- Article
- Headache and Associated Psychological Variables in Intensive Care Unit Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Observational
- Personalized 3D Printed Eye Gear for Microscopic Surgeons Amidst and beyond COVID-19.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Gender differences in work attendance among health care workers in Northern Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) applications in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and considerations for methods.Applied ergonomics · 2022Article
- Development of a customized mask retainer for improving the fit performance of surgical masks.PloS one · 2022Article
- A framework for effective face-mask contact modeling based on finite element analysis for custom design of a facial mask.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historically, PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) has generally been designed around the size and shape of an average European or US white man's face and body. There is little academic evidence to support anecdotal reports that women are at a greater disadvantage than men from ill-fitting PPE. This is especially relevant in healthcare settings where women make up at least 75% of frontline workers. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problems associated with the fit of PPE that until now have been mainly anecdotal. This research presents results and analysis of a quantitative and qualitative survey concerning the fit of PPE worn by 248 healthcare workers, in a variety of healthcare roles and settings, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis of the survey results showed that women were less likely than men to feel safe carrying out their roles, with only 30.5% of women and 53.3% of men stating that they felt safe all of the time. A statistically significant link is made between women suffering more with poor fit than men with certain categories of PPE (gowns, masks, visors, goggles). Over four times as many women (54.8%) as men (13.3%) reported their surgical gowns being large to some degree and women were nearly twice as likely (53.5%) to experience oversized surgical masks than men (28.6%). However, it was recognized that PPE fit problems are not exclusive to women as many men also do not conform to the underlying shape and size of PPE designs. Survey results indicated that both sexes felt equally hampered due to the fit of their PPE and around a third of both women and men had modified their PPE to address fit issues. Oversized and modified PPE presents its own set of unintended consequences. Following strict processes for doffing and removing PPE is key to virus control but doffing modified PPE can fall outside of these processes, risking cross infection. In addition, wearers of critical items of PPE (such as respirators) currently undergo a "fit test"; however, fit does not reconcile with comfort and over-tightened PPE can cause headaches, discomfort and distraction when worn for long periods. Requirements and fit tests are also not setting-specific; qualitative responses from the survey give an indication that this must be a future consideration.
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.