ArticleDiscover social science and health2022
Compliance with wearing facemasks by university teaching staff during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: a cross sectional study.
Article in Discover social science and health, 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.
- Perceived Corona virus exposure as a function of interpersonal distance and time of a conversation.Discover social science and health · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to explore compliance with and barriers to wearing facemasks at the workplace among university teaching staff in Egypt. Methods: An online survey was shared with teaching staff members at 11 public and 12 private Egyptian universities and high institutes, and 218 responses were received. All participants were asked about beliefs related to wearing facemasks. For participants who taught in-person classes, compliance with and barriers to wearing facemasks at the workplace were assessed. Compliance level was classified into: Non-compliance, inadequate and adequate, based on the degree of adherence to having facemasks on and not taking them off at five main work settings. We compared demographic characteristics, beliefs, and barriers scores across compliance levels. Results: Most participants (81.7%) believed that facemasks reduce infection risk to others and 74.3% believed facemasks can reduce risk to the wearer. Around 80% of the respondents who taught in-person classes wore facemasks, but only 37.8% met the criteria of adequate compliance. Difficulty breathing and impaired communication were cited as major barriers by 42.2% and 30.3% of in-person class tutors respectively. The risk of reporting COVID-19 like symptoms among non-compliant participants was double the risk among those with adequate compliance (45.9% vs 25.7% respectively). Adequate compliance was significantly associated with higher positive beliefs scores and lower barriers scores. Conclusion: Adequate compliance with wearing facemasks at the workplace was low. Addressing negative beliefs may improve compliance. Difficulty breathing, and impaired communication were important barriers, therefore we recommend replacing in-person interactions with online classes whenever applicable. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44155-022-00011-3.
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.