ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2022
How Are You Feeling? Interpretation of Emotions through Facial Expressions of People Wearing Different Personal Protective Equipment: An Observational Study.
Article in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 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
Abstract
(1) Background: The perception of others' emotions based on non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, is fundamental for interpersonal communication and mutual support. Using personal protection equipment (PPE) in a work environment during the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic challenged health professionals' ability to recognise emotions and expressions while wearing PPE. The working hypothesis of this study was that the increased limitation of facial visibility, due to the use of a personal protective device, would interfere with the perception of basic emotions in the participants. (2) Methods: Through a cross-sectional descriptive study, the present research aimed to analyse the identification of four basic emotions (happiness; sadness; fear/surprise; and disgust/anger) through three types of PPE (FFP2 respirator, protective overall and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR)), by using 32 photographs. The study was conducted using volunteer participants who met the inclusion criteria (individuals older than 13 without cognitive limitations). Participants had to recognise the emotions of actors in photographs that were randomly displayed in an online form. (3) Results: In general, the 690 participants better recognised happiness and fear, independently of the PPE utilised. Women could better identify different emotions, along with university graduates and young and middle-aged adults. Emotional identification was at its worst when the participants wore protective overalls (5.42 ± 1.22), followed by the PAPR (5.83 ± 1.38); the best scores were obtained using the FFP2 masks (6.57 ± 1.20). Sadness was the least recognised emotion, regardless of age. (4) Conclusions: The personal protective devices interfere in the recognition of emotions, with the protective overalls having the greatest impact, and the FFP2 mask the least. The emotions that were best recognised were happiness and fear/surprise, while the least recognised emotion was sadness. Women were better at identifying emotions, as well as participants with higher education, and young and middle-aged adults.
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.