ArticleClinical journal of oncology nursing2026
Evaluation of Personal Protective Equipment Use Among Environmental Services Workers in Hospital Settings.
Article in Clinical journal of oncology nursing, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental services (EVS) workers in healthcare settings are at risk for exposure to hazardous drugs, including antineoplastic drugs, because of their role in cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting surfaces where patients have received these drugs. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical for minimizing exposure; because oncology nurses rely on EVS partners to maintain safe care environments, inconsistent PPE use has direct implications for team safety and oncology practice.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess PPE use among EVS workers in oncology and non-oncology settings, identify gaps between self-reported and observed PPE use, and explore factors influencing use.
methodsThe team employed a mixed-methods approach, combining observational data with verbally administered questionnaire data. Twelve EVS workers from various units participated. Observations of PPE use and responses to adapted survey instruments provided insights into practices and perceptions.
findingsResults revealed discrepancies between self-reported and observed PPE use, and participants frequently overestimated use. Participants commonly wore gloves, but they underused gloves tested for use with hazardous drugs, particularly in oncology settings. The team identified training gaps as barriers to consistent PPE use, and social desirability bias may explain the discrepancy between self-reported and observed PPE use.
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.