ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2023
Personal protective equipment simulation training is associated with lower COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nursing perception and practices in N95 mask reuse in intensive care: a cross-sectional study.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted personal protective equipment donning and doffing training for health professions students and healthcare workers: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the personal protective equipment training strategies during the beginning of the pandemic and to investigate the association between training and COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers.
methodsThis cross-sectional study conducted between March and May 2020 included 7,142 healthcare professionals who were eligible for both online and face-to-face simulation-based training on personal protective equipment use. Simulation training attendance was assessed by reviewing the attendance list, and the COVID-19 sick leave records recovered from the institutional RT-PCR database used to grant sick leave. The association between personal protective equipment training and COVID-19 was investigated using logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and occupational characteristics.
resultsThe mean age was 36.9 years (± 8.3), and 72.6% of participants were female. A total of 5,502 (77.0%) professionals were trained: 3,012 (54.7%) through online training, 691 (12.6%) through face-to-face training, and 1,799 (32.7%) through both strategies. During the study period, 584 (8.2%) COVID-19 cases were diagnosed among these professionals. The number of positive RT-PCR tests was 180 (11.0%) for untrained professionals, 245 (8.1%) for those trained only online, 35 (5.1%) for those trained face-to-face, and 124 (6.9%) for those trained with both strategies (p<0.001). Participants who received face-to-face training had a 0.43 lower risk of contracting COVID-19.
conclusionPersonal protective equipment training decreased the odds of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals, with face-to-face simulation-based training being most effective.
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.