Trial reportApplied ergonomics2022
Design considerations for protective mask development: A remote mask usability evaluation.
Trial report in Applied ergonomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Face anthropometry for filtering facepiece respirators: analysis of the association between facial dimensions and respirator fit.Annals of work exposures and health · 2024Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging respirators: a randomized crossover trial to assess respiratory protection, usability, and comfort.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Beyond Pathogen Filtration: Possibility of Smart Masks as Wearable Devices for Personal and Group Health and Safety Management.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The design of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) continues to pose usability concerns for healthcare workers, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to develop a holistic model to guide mask design improvement. Dental students (n = 38) with experience wearing N95 FFRs participated in a randomized wear trial of three alternative protective masks. A mixed methods survey was used to examine usability of individual mask design components, the relationship of facial/head area to mask features, and overall mask design. Survey results indicated MNmask v1 demonstrated higher usability in seal confidence (M = 3.46), while MNmask v2 performed higher in satisfactory fit (M = 3.50). Design components of nose wire and head/neck bands were the most problematic, while conditions of skin irritation and tight/loose fit created an unfavorable wear experience. To consider healthcare workers' needs in improving the usability of protective masks, a model is presented to consider characteristics of fit, comfort, material, and design.
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.