ArticleAustralian and New Zealand journal of public health2022
The suitability and usability of a tool to assess contact status from COVID-19 exposures in the workplace.
Article in Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2022. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the usability of a self-assessment COVID-19 exposure tool for workplaces.
methodsA COVID-19 exposure tool for workplaces was developed using five risk criteria. Public Health Unit (PHU) assessors who administered the tool documented when they administered the tool, the time taken for finalisation of the assessment and ease of administration. The System Usability Scale was used for workplace managers' perceptions on tool use. Data were assessed using both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
resultsEighty-four workplaces used the tool to assess COVID-19 exposure risk. Of those, the outcome provided by the tool did not require modification by the PHU assessor in 70% of workplaces. Eighty per cent of the assessments were completed by the next day. PHU assessors rated the overall ease of administration of the tool as 'easy' or 'very easy' for 85% of workplaces and indicated they would employ the tool across a number of settings including complex workplaces. The mean System Usability Scale was 82. Workplace managers were predominately positive regarding its suitability.
conclusionThe tool provides an easy-to-use assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in the workplace. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: The tool's adoption will empower workplace managers and improve the capacity of public health units to prevent further transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in workplaces.
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.