Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35790970›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH).

Christopher A Martin, Daniel Pan, Joshua Nazareth, Avinash Aujayeb, Luke Bryant, Sue Carr, Laura J Gray, Bindu Gregary, Amit Gupta, Anna L Guyatt and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors.

Christopher A Martin *Department of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Daniel Pan *Department of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Joshua Nazareth *Department of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Avinash AujayebRespiratory Department, Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital, Cramlington, UK.
Luke BryantDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sue CarrUniversity Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.
Laura J GrayDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Bindu GregaryLancashire Clinical Research Facility, Royal Preston Hospital, Fulwood, UK.
Amit GuptaOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Anna L GuyattDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Alan GopalHull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Thomas HineOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Catherine JohnDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
I Chris McManusUniversity College London Medical School, London, UK.
Carl MelbourneDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Laura B NellumsPopulation and Lifespan Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Rubina RezaCentre for Research & Development, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
Sandra SimpsonNottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Martin D TobinDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Katherine WoolfUniversity College London Medical School, London, UK.
Stephen ZingweResearch and Development Department, Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Bracknell, UK.
Kamlesh KhuntiDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Manish PareekDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. mp426@le.ac.uk.
UK-REACH Study Collaborative Group

Funding

Academy of Medical Sciences SBF005\1047British Heart Foundation AA/18/3/ 34220HSRD VA TPP 10-008Medical Research Council MC_PC_19004Medical Research Council MR/P00167X/1Medical Research Council MR/V027549/1Wellcome Trust 202849/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 204801/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsWe conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis).

resultsTen thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis.

conclusionsOnly a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Personal Protective EquipmentCohort StudiesCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19EthnicityHealthcare workerPersonal protective equipmentPPE

Identifiers

PMID35790970
PMCPMC9255515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.