ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
The Impact of Biosecurity on Biological and Psychosocial Risks for Health Workers of COVID Hospitals in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome data support that health care workers (HCWs) must have sufficient and good quality personal protective equipment (PPE) and the necessary training to manage COVID patients to avoid contagion that can lead to death. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between biosafety on the biological risks of SARS-CoV-2 and risks of fatigue, anxiety, or depression in health workers who care for patients in COVID hospitals, from September 2020 to August 2021. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe questionnaire used in this study (Q6S64I) consisted of 6 spheres: Sociodemographic aspects, working conditions; Personal Protection Equipment; safety and health; training and knowledge about COVID-19, the form of transport, and personal health conditions. The answers were online. The Goldberg questionnaire (EADG) measures anxiety and depression, and the questionnaire measures fatigue (Barrientos-Gutiérrez et al.) (PSSF).
resultsIn total, 76.5% of the HCWs were doctors, 25.2% worked in the emergency services, 79.3% received PPE from their institution, 82.9% cared for COVID-19 patients, and 27.9% tested positive for COVID-19. The PPE provided by the employer was 80%, but the quality was deficient, insufficient, and associated with a relative risk of 4.6. A total of 99% acquired better PPE on their own. The exposure to COVID-19 and the surgical mask provided by the institution had an associated relative risk of 2.8 for the HCWs. A total of 39% of the HCWs reported being calm.
conclusionsPPE, risk exposure, and safety at work were significantly associated with drowsiness and heaviness, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, and depression.
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.