ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2025
The relative effectiveness of personal protective equipment and environmental controls in protecting healthcare workers from Covid-19.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOur aim was to explore the probable effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE) and environmental controls in protecting healthcare workers from Covid-19 infection using the Covid Exposure Model and Risk App (CEMRA), which estimates the risk of infection by various pathways.
methodsWe adapted a compartmental model of nine states within a hospital room to estimate virus transport and fate for contact and inhalation transmission from an infected patient, implemented using a discrete-time Markov-chain. Cough spray transmission was modeled separately, extrapolated to the expiratory volume, with a probability of the cough impacting the face in proportion to the surface area of the mucous membranes. Infectious profiles of patients observed in hospitals, constructed using information on salivary virus concentration, exhaled emissions and cough frequency, were categorized from "extremely low" to "extremely high" in seven steps. We parameterized the model using measurements made in three Scottish hospitals along with estimates from the literature. Seven interventions spanning PPE, engineering controls and administrative controls were applied to simulations of a health care worker working in a small room.
resultsRoute of infection and to a lesser extent efficacy of controls depended on the infectiousness of the patient; inhalation was the main transmission route in scenarios from "extremely low" to "moderate" infectiousness. For these lower infectious profiles, the surgical mask, surgical mask combined with hand hygiene, and surgical mask, hand hygiene and surface disinfection showed between a 60% and 64% average reduction in risk compared with no intervention. The use of natural ventilation and an air purification device resulted in a modeled 71% to 77% reduction in risk. A healthcare worker wearing an FFP2 or FFP3 respirator, was associated with an 86% to 95% reduction in risk. Finally, a ventilated headboard or a powered respirator with hood showed between a 91% and 99% reduction in risk. For the "high" to "extremely high" infectious profiles the cough spray route predominated, although the modeled effectiveness of the interventions was similar to the lower infectious profiles.
conclusionThe use of a flexible quantitative microbial risk assessment model can assess the likely reduction of risk of Covid-19 from workplace controls under various assumptions. Respirators and local ventilation were the most effective modeled interventions.
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.