ArticleCureus2022
Physiological Hazard Assessment While Wielding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Among Health Care Workers.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring healthcare workers' perspectives: A comprehensive mixed-method investigation of knowledge, belief, and perceptions towards COVID-19 vaccination in Madhya Pradesh, India.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
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
Introduction Accurate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is an essential part of infection prevention and control measures to protect health care workers and patients from various hazardous conditions. Health care workers caring for patients with potentially infectious health conditions are using PPE for long periods of time. However, long-term use of PPE can cause many physiological health hazards among health care workers. So, the current study was carried out to assess the general health problems and dermatological problems experienced by health care workers with PPE use. Materials and methods A descriptive cross-sectional survey has been carried out in two selected tertiary care hospitals in central India by recruiting 301 health care workers. Non-probability convenient sampling technique was used to select participants for the study. Sociodemographic Performa and structured questionnaires were used to collect data on demographic characteristics of the participants and various health problems experienced by health care workers with PPE use. Collected data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics. Results The current study reported excessive sweating (86.4%), difficulty in reading (85%), dry mouth (80.7%), and breathing difficulty (74.1%) as the most common problem associated with PPE use. In addition to this, adverse reactions like headache, restlessness, and dizziness were reported by 70.1%, 64.5%, and 50.8%. Indentation and pain on the back of the ears (76.1%), skin soaking (67.1%), and excessive sweating (76.1%) were identified as the most common problems related to N-95 masks, gloves, and coverall use. Conclusion The current study revealed a higher incidence of various health problems with PPE use among health care workers. The findings of the study highlight the importance of developing various guidelines to reduce the negative impact of PPE use and implementing preventive measures to decrease health problems associated with PPE use.
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.