Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34836839›Full record

ArticleInfection, disease & health2022

"One minute it's an airborne virus, then it's a droplet virus, and then it's like nobody really knows…": Experiences of pandemic PPE amongst Australian healthcare workers.

Jennifer Broom, Alex Broom, Leah Williams Veazey, Penelope Burns, Chris Degeling, Suyin Hor, Ruth Barratt, Mary Wyer, Gwendolyn L Gilbert

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Infection, disease & health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. The Enduring Effects of COVID for Cancer Care: Learning from Real-Life Clinical Practice.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors.

Jennifer BroomSunshine Coast Health Institute, 6 Doherty Street, Birtinya, QLD, 4575, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Alex BroomSydney Centre for Healthy Societies, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Leah Williams VeazeySydney Centre for Healthy Societies, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. Electronic address: leah.williamsveazey@sydney.edu.au.
Penelope BurnsANU Medical School, The Australian National University, Garran, ACT, 2605, Australia; School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Suyin HorCentre for Health Services Management, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Ruth BarrattThe Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Mary WyerThe Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Gwendolyn L GilbertThe Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has challenged health systems globally. A key controversy has been how to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) using personal protective equipment (PPE).

methodsInterviews were performed with 63 HCWs across two states in Australia to explore their experiences of PPE during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Thematic analysis was performed.

resultsFour themes were identified with respect to HCWs' experience of pandemic PPE: 1. Risk, fear and uncertainty: HCWs experienced considerable fear and heightened personal and professional risk, reporting anxiety about the adequacy of PPE and the resultant risk to themselves and their families. 2. Evidence and the ambiguities of evolving guidelines: forms of evidence, its interpretation, and the perception of rapidly changing guidelines heightened distress amongst HCWs. 3. Trust and care: Access to PPE signified organisational support and care, and restrictions on PPE use were considered a breach of trust. 4. Non-compliant practice in the context of social upheaval: despite communication of evidence-based guidelines, an environment of mistrust, personal risk, and organisational uncertainty resulted in variable compliance.

conclusionPPE preferences and usage offer a material signifier of the broader, evolving pandemic context, reflecting HCWs' fear, mistrust, sense of inequity and social solidarity (or breakdown). PPE therefore represents the affective (emotional) demands of professional care, as well as a technical challenge of infection prevention and control. If rationing of PPE is necessary, policymakers need to take account of how HCWs will perceive restrictions or conflicting recommendations and build trust through effective communication (including of uncertainty).

Indexed as

COVID-19Personal Protective EquipmentAustraliaHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AustraliaCOVID-19EmotionsInfection prevention and controlPersonal protective equipment

Identifiers

PMID34836839
PMCPMC8610373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.