Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750499›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2024

Assessment of subjective well-being of healthcare workers in response to heat and personal protective equipment under controlled conditions using a standardized protocol.

Caroline Quartucci, Razan Wibowo, Viet Do, Stephan Bose-O Reilly, Dennis Nowak, Veronika Weilnhammer, Tobias Weinmann, Stefan Rakete

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The role of deer keds (Diptera: Hippoboscidae: Lipoptena and Neolipoptena) in occupational and public health.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Caroline QuartucciInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Razan WibowoInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7524-9973
Viet DoInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stephan Bose-O ReillyInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dennis NowakInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Veronika WeilnhammerInstitute for Occupational Health and Product Safety, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Environmental Health, Munich, Germany.
Tobias WeinmannInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4582-5191
Stefan RaketeInstitute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. stefan.rakete@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4851-513X

Funding

Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege - BGW FF_1486
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to climate change, the increasing frequency of hot summer days and heat waves can result in occupational heat strain, especially in non-air-conditioned workplaces. Healthcare workers (HCW) engaged in patient care are particularly affected, as they are additionally exposed to physical stress. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) can aggravate heat strain in HCW. This study aimed to examine the subjective well-being of HCW when exposed to heat and PPE under controlled conditions.

methodsThis study was designed as a randomized crossover trial. Participants performed standardized healthcare tasks in a climatic chamber for approximately 3.5 h at different indoor temperatures (22 °C and 27 °C) and varied working conditions (with or without PPE). The effects on participants' subjective well-being, encompassing thermal, physiological and psychological stress were assessed using a customized questionnaire.

resultsHeat had a greater effect than PPE on thermal, physical and psychological stress. Conversely, PPE had a greater effect on physical demand and effort. For the majority of outcomes, combined exposure to heat and PPE resulted in the highest perceived discomfort. Furthermore, the participants reported increased sweating and other discomforts when working at elevated temperatures or with PPE.

conclusionsIn this study, heat and PPE, but particularly the combination of both factors, were identified as unfavorable working environments. Although the trials were conducted in a controlled environment, the outcomes provide valuable information about the effect of heat and PPE on HCW in a real-life setting. Furthermore, the design used in this study can be beneficial in evaluating the effect of mitigation strategies.

Indexed as

Health care workersHeat stress; climate change; occupational safetyPersonal protective equipment

Identifiers

PMID38750499
PMCPMC11095016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.