ArticleSafety and health at work2022
Assessment of Masks Used by Healthcare Workers: Development and Validation of a Mask Qualitative Assessment Tool (MQAT).
Article in Safety and health at work, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory masks can provide healthcare workers with protection from biological hazards when they have good performance. There is a direct relationship between the visual specifications of a mask and its efficacy; thus, the aim of this study was to develop tools for qualitative assessment of the performance of masks used by healthcare workers. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to develop a qualitative assessment tool for medical face masks (MFM) and particle filtering half masks (PFHM). The development of domains and items was undertaken using observation and interviews, the opinions of an expert panel, and a review of texts and international standards. The second phase evaluated the psychometric properties of tools. Finally, the validated Mask Qualitative Assessment Tools (MQAT) were used to assess six samples from 10 brands of the two types of masks. Results: MQAT-MFM and MQAT-PHFM shared 42 items across seven domains: "cleanliness," "design," "marking, labeling and packaging," "mask layers," "mask strap," "materials and construction," and "nose clip." MQAT-MFM included one additional item. MQAT-PHFM included another nine items associated with an eighth "Practical Performance" domain, and the valve version had another additional "Exhalation Valve" domain and six items. The evaluation indicated 80% compliance for MFM and 71% compliance for PFHM. "Marking, labeling and packaging" and "Layers" were associated with the least compliance in both types of masks and should be checked carefully for defining mask quality. Conclusion: MQAT can be used for immediate screening and initial assessment of MFM and PHFM through appearance, simple tools, and visual inspection.
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.