ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2024
Objective and subjective evaluation of the use of protective clothing on the thermal strain and mental workload of nurses during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses are among high-risk occupational groups during the outbreak of epidemics. Therefore, these people are required to use personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies have shown that the use of personal protective equipment can affect people's thermal strain and mental workload.
objectiveThe present study was conducted with the aim of objectively and subjectively evaluating the use of protective clothing on the thermal strain and mental workload of nurses during the covid-19 pandemic.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was divided into two groups with a sample size of 300 people who were selected by systematic random method. In the first group, 120 people were objectively evaluated (use of protective clothing). In the second group, 180 people only completed the questionnaire of mental workload, feeling of heat and sweating and other information related to the type of clothing and the duration of its use, etc. Measurements were done in August and September of 2021 and in the morning shift of hospitals. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 software and chi-square, independent T-test and linear regression tests.
resultsThe average age and average working hours per month of the participants in the study were 33.51±7.88 years, 187.91±35.37 hours, respectively. The results showed that the predicted average vote (PMV) index and the predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD), moisture felt on the skin surface, the feeling of desirability and pleasantness of the temperature, the weight of sweat and the humidity inside the clothes between the two groups of people using insulated clothes There is a significant difference between medicine and dressing (P < 0.05). There was a significant relationship between mental workload and type of clothing, average working hours per month.
conclusionsThe use of medical isolation clothes causes a high heat load on nurses and can increase their mental workload. On the other hand, people using normal gowns suffer from a high mental workload due to the fear of disease due to the uncertainty of high-level protection. In addition, medical isolation clothes increase the humidity of the skin due to their impermeability, which causes skin complications.
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.