ArticleBMJ public health2024
Cross-sectional study of personal protective equipment use, training and biosafety preparedness among healthcare workers during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Brazil.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
Objectives: Brazil has high rates of COVID-19 and tuberculosis among healthcare workers (HCWs). Personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential for their protection. We aimed to evaluate PPE use, training, and preparedness among HCWs in the early months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using questionnaires available to HCWs through a website created to provide PPE guidelines. χ Results: We analysed 1410 questionnaires collected from April to July 2020 representing 526 Brazilian cities. HCWs-TCOVID-19 had fewer years of work experience, were more likely to reuse PPE, and reported higher stress levels and lower biosafety at the workplace than HCWs not TCOVID-19 patients. Fearful concerns, limited PPE access and pandemic unpreparedness were common among HCWs. Lack of PPE training was associated with the profession and no N95 respirator fit tests. N95 reuse during the pandemic, common to 78% of the HCWs, was associated with the reuse of PPE during the pandemic and reuse of N95 before the pandemic. Conclusions: We report the unpreparedness of HCWs and institutions to handle the pandemic, with low rates of training and N95 respirator fit testing and high PPE reuse. N95 reuse was a pre-established practice. This chronic unpreparedness to deal with airborne pathogens may have contributed to one of the highest global rates of tuberculosis and COVID-19 among HCWs.
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.