Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37937861›Full record

ArticleJournal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing2024

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review.

Clarissa A Shaw, Kyu Ri Lee, Alexander Williams, Nathan A Shaw, Delaney Weeks, Lainie Jackson, Kristine N Williams

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Risks and benefits of face masks in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Clarissa A ShawDivision of Acute and Critical Care, College of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3136-5278
Kyu Ri LeeCollege of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Alexander WilliamsCollege of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Nathan A ShawDepartment of Family Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2837-420X
Delaney WeeksCollege of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Lainie JacksonCollege of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Kristine N WilliamsSchool of Nursing, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1312-788X

Funding

Changing Talk Online Training (CHATO): A National Trial to Reduce Behavioral Symptoms in Long Term Care Residents with Alzheimer's Disease and Other DementiasR01AG069171 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI WILLIAMS, KRISTINE N. · 2020 to 2025
$3.9M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG069171NIA NIH HHS R01AG069171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFacemasks are an important piece of personal protective equipment (PPE) to mitigate the spread of respiratory illnesses, but they can impede communication between patients and healthcare providers. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify effective communication practices while wearing facemasks.

designScoping review using a systematic search of articles from the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases.

methodsThe PEO (population, exposure, outcome) methodology was selected for this systematic scoping review. The population of interest (P) includes humans of all ages (children, adults, and older adults); the exposure of interest (E) is PPE that covers the mouth (i.e., facemasks); and the outcome of interest (O) is successful or unsuccessful communication practices. The Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals appraisal guidelines were used to determine the level and quality of the research.

resultsThirty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen of these were high- or good-quality research studies, and the remaining 22 were non-research articles included with separate analysis as part of the scoping review. The 17 articles encompassed 2656 participants. The highest quality evidence indicated that standard surgical masks have the least impact on speech perception compared to other non-transparent mask types, and that recognizing emotions is less accurate with facemasks, necessitating compensatory actions (i.e., reducing extraneous noise, using a microphone to amplify voice, and employing clear speech). Evidence was contradictory regarding the use of transparent masks. Evidence was of limited quality for other non-verbal and verbal communication strategies.

conclusionAwareness of communication challenges is crucial when wearing facemasks. More high-quality studies are needed to evaluate communication techniques when speakers are wearing facemasks. Basic strategies such as selecting an appropriate mask type, reducing extraneous noise, using microphones, verbalizing emotions, and employing clear speech appear to be beneficial. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings of this scoping review highlight the importance of considering communication challenges while wearing facemasks in the healthcare settings. The review suggests that selecting an appropriate mask type, reducing extraneous noise, verbalizing emotions, and employing clear speech are some strategies that may be effective in mitigating the impact of facemasks on communication between patients and healthcare providers.

Indexed as

CommunicationMasksPersonal Protective EquipmentHealth PersonnelHumansclear speechN95nonverbal communicationpersonal protective equipmentsurgical masksverbal communication

Identifiers

PMID37937861
PMCPMC10922106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.