Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 20 de 5.167
1.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 13(1): 55, 2024 May 31.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38816876

BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency. METHOD: Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).


COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Female , Adult , Health Personnel , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence
2.
BMJ Open ; 14(5): e074596, 2024 May 31.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38821571

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a serious risk of contracting this virus. Therefore, they should use personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect themselves. Long-term use of these devices has led to many side effects, including headaches. This study investigated the prevalence of headaches related to using PPE in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to February 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All cross-sectional studies that investigated the prevalence of headache complications caused by PPE were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers reviewed the articles separately and independently. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies was used to address study design quality and the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies. The heterogeneity of the studies was checked with the I2 statistic, and due to the high heterogeneity, the random effects model was used for synthesis. Data were analysed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software V.3.3.70. RESULTS: Out of 3218 articles retrieved for all side effects, 40 were eligible for this meta-analysis. The prevalence of headaches related to the use of PPE in these 40 studies, with a sample size of 19 229 people, was 43.8% (95% CI 43.1% to 44.6%, I2=98.6%, p<0.001). Based on the meta-regression results, no significant relationship was observed between the prevalence of headaches and variables such as year of publication, study location, sample size and quality of studies. CONCLUSION: Headache is one of the common side effects of PPE, which can interfere with HCWs' performance. It is suggested that manufacturers improve the quality of their equipment while healthcare managers should equip and train staff adequately to minimise side effects, ensuring health and enhanced service delivery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264874.


COVID-19 , Headache , Health Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Headache/epidemiology , Headache/etiology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/etiology
3.
BMC Res Notes ; 17(1): 134, 2024 May 13.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38741143

OBJECTIVE: In agricultural activities, pesticide use is critical, but poisoning issues are one of the most important occupational hazards for farmers. Training can help protect farmers' health from pesticide hazards. This study aimed to investigate the effect of education on farmers' behavior in the safe use of pesticides using the health belief model. METHODS: A quasi-experimental (pretest-post-test) study conducted on 84 farmers who were selected using the convenience sampling method. The data collection tool was a two-part questionnaire including demographic information and a questionnaire designed based on the constructs of the health belief model in using personal protective equipment while working with the pesticides. The instrument was completed before and two weeks after an educational intervention. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software version 26. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 48.94 ± 9.14 years and 69% were male. The study showed that with increasing age, the mean score of health belief model constructs in the safe use of pesticides decreased. Female and higher-educated farmers had higher scores. After the intervention, the mean scores of health belief model constructs in the safe use of pesticides increased significantly, except perceived barriers construct which decreased significantly. Also, the frequency of protective equipment uses while working with pesticides increased significantly after the intervention and safe behaviors increased, while unsafe behaviors decreased. CONCLUSION: The education as an effective intervention, improves farmers' safety attitudes and behaviors in pesticide use and it is recommended that educational programs be designed according to the characteristics of the audience.


Farmers , Health Belief Model , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Occupational Exposure , Pesticides , Humans , Pesticides/adverse effects , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Adult , Farmers/education , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires , Health Education/methods , Occupational Health , Personal Protective Equipment , Agriculture/education , Agriculture/methods
4.
AORN J ; 119(6): 412-420, 2024 Jun.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38804742

Processes for intravesical chemotherapy after transurethral resection of nonmuscle invasive bladder tumors may lack standardization. In 2019, at a large health care system in Los Angeles, California, five incident reports involving chemotherapeutic agent spills from urinary catheters after bladder tumor procedures necessitated a quality improvement project. The project lead determined that a cost-effective alternative device for securing the chemotherapeutic agent in the bladder was needed at four surgical locations of the health care system. In addition, a review of the literature and an observational assessment revealed lack of adherence to standard and recommended processes for using personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling hazardous medications. After revising existing processes, acquiring a cost-effective clamp and recommended chemotherapy PPE, instructing personnel on the clamping process and use of PPE, and implementing use of the clamp, there have been no spills associated with intravesical chemotherapy across the four surgical locations.


Urinary Bladder Neoplasms , Humans , Administration, Intravesical , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/drug therapy , Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Los Angeles , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/standards , Quality Improvement
5.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 20(1): 2342622, 2024 Dec 31.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38771122

To probe the understanding of healthcare providers regarding occupational exposure to human papillomavirus and their knowledge about human papillomavirus vaccination in relation to the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) recommendations. In this cross-sectional study, the healthcare providers at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota were delivered an electronic survey. The survey was completed by 349 healthcare providers, with one respondent excluded for inconsistent entry. The mean age of respondents was 42.7 ± 10.9, and of those, 68% were female and 32% were male. Of the unvaccinated respondents, 43.3% were ≤ 45 y of age (eligible for vaccination), while those vaccinated formed 41% of the respondents. Healthcare providers are highly concerned about their cancer safety, as shown by their awareness of occupational human papillomavirus hazards and broad knowledge about vaccine efficacy. The use of personal protective equipment varied widely, including eyewear, double gloving, procedural face mask, N95 face mask, and/or nothing. Human papillomavirus and cancer risk was clearly perceived by healthcare providers. For professions, pairwise comparisons revealed that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and allied healthcare providers had lower scores than medical doctors. Despite the high level of understanding among healthcare providers of occupational human papillomavirus exposure, only a few of them knew of the recommendations of the ASCPP for vaccination of healthcare providers treating human papillomavirus-related diseases. In such cases, most of those surveyed embraced vaccination, which was considered 100% safe by medical doctors and allied health professionals.


Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel , Occupational Exposure , Papillomavirus Infections , Papillomavirus Vaccines , Humans , Female , Male , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Papillomavirus Vaccines/administration & dosage , Papillomavirus Vaccines/adverse effects , Adult , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Florida , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Minnesota , Arizona , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology , Personal Protective Equipment , Human Papillomavirus Viruses
6.
PLoS One ; 19(5): e0303062, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38758971

Correctional centres (termed here 'prisons') are at high risk of COVID-19 and have featured major outbreaks worldwide. Inevitable close contacts, frequent inmate movements, and a disproportionate burden of co-morbidities mean these environments need to be prioritised in any public health response to respiratory pathogens such as COVID-19. We developed an individual-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission model for the prison system in New South Wales, Australia - incorporating all 33 correctional centres, 13,458 inmates, 578 healthcare and 6,909 custodial staff. Potential COVID-19 disease outbreaks were assessed under various mitigation strategies, including quarantine on entry, isolation of cases, rapid antigen testing of staff, as well as immunisation.Without control measures, the model projected a peak of 472 new infections daily by day 35 across the prison system, with all inmates infected by day 120. The most effective individual mitigation strategies were high immunisation coverage and prompt lockdown of centres with infected inmates which reduced outbreak size by 62-73%. Other than immunisation, the combination of quarantine of inmates at entry, isolation of proven or suspected cases, and widespread use of personal protective equipment by staff and inmates was the most effective strategy. High immunisation coverage mitigates the spread of COVID-19 within and between correctional settings but is insufficient alone. Maintaining quarantine and isolation, along with high immunisation levels, will allow correctional systems to function with a low risk of outbreaks. These results have informed public health policy for respiratory pathogens in Australian correctional systems.


COVID-19 , Disease Outbreaks , Models, Theoretical , Prisons , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Prisons/statistics & numerical data , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , New South Wales/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Personal Protective Equipment
7.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 678, 2024 May 29.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38811956

BACKGROUND: Paramedics' work, even pre-pandemic, can be confronting and dangerous. As pandemics add extra stressors, the study explored paramedics' lived experience of the barriers to, and enablers of, responding to suspected or confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. METHODS: This exploratory-descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to investigate Queensland metropolitan paramedics' experiences of responding to cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Registered Paramedics were recruited by criterion sampling of staff who experienced the COVID-19 pandemic as active officers. RESULTS: Nine registered paramedics participated. Five themes emerged: communication, fear and risk, work-related protective factors, leadership, and change. Unique barriers included impacts on effective communication due to the mobile nature of paramedicine, inconsistent policies/procedures between different healthcare facilities, dispatch of incorrect information to paramedics, assisting people to navigate the changing healthcare system, and wearing personal protective equipment in hot, humid environments. A lower perceived risk from COVID-19, and increased empathy after recovering from COVID-19 were unique enablers. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovered barriers and enablers to attending suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases unique to paramedicine, often stemming from the mobile nature of prehospital care, and identifies the need for further research in paramedicine post-pandemic to better understand how paramedics can be supported during public health emergencies to ensure uninterrupted ambulance service delivery.


Allied Health Personnel , COVID-19 , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Queensland/epidemiology , Allied Health Personnel/psychology , Female , Male , Adult , Interviews as Topic , Pandemics/prevention & control , Attitude of Health Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Emergency Medical Technicians/psychology , Leadership , Middle Aged , Paramedics
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD015158, 2024 05 02.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38695617

BACKGROUND: Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos-related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight-hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. We categorised PPE as full-face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows. • Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1) • 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2) • 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3) • 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4) • 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5) • 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6) Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross-over study that compared the effect of two different coveralls on body temperature. No studies evaluated the remaining predefined outcomes. Most studies were at overall moderate risk of bias due to insufficient reporting. The cross-over study was at high risk of bias. Full-face filtering masks Two studies evaluated full-face filtering masks. They provided insufficient data for band 1 and band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 2: RoM 19 (95% CI 17.6 to 20.1; 1 study, 3 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 69 (95% CI 26.6 to 175.9; 2 studies, 17 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 455 (95% CI 270.4 to 765.1; 1 study, 16 measurements; low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 2752 (95% CI 1236.5 to 6063.2;1 study, 3 measurements; low certainty) The inside measurements in band 5 did not comply with the EU OEL of 0.1 f/cm3, and no inside measurements complied with the proposed EU OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Supplied air respirators Two studies evaluated supplied air respirators. They provided no data for band 6. The results for the remaining bands were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 11 (95% CI 7.6 to 14.9; 1 study, 134 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 63 (95% CI 43.8 to 90.9; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 528 (95% CI 368.7 to 757.5; 1 study, 38 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 4: RoM 4638 (95% CI 3071.7 to 7044.5; 1 study, 49 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 5: RoM 26,134 (16,647.2 to 41,357.1; 1 study, 22 measurements; moderate certainty) All inside measurements complied with the current OEL of 0.1 f/cm3 and the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Powered air-purifying respirators Three studies evaluated PAPRs. The results per band were as follows. • Band 1: RoM 8 (95% CI 3.7 to 19.1; 1 study, 23 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 2: RoM 90 (95% CI 64.7 to 126.5; 1 study, 17 measurements; moderate certainty) • Band 3: RoM 104 (95% CI 23.1 to 464.1; 3 studies, 14 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 4: RoM 706 (95% CI 219.2 to 2253.0; 2 studies, 43 measurements; very low certainty) • Band 5: RoM 1366 (544.6 to 3428.9; 2 studies, 8 measurements; low certainty) • Band 6: RoM 18,958 (95% CI 4023.9 to 90,219.4; 2 studies, 13 measurements; very low certainty) All inside measurements complied with the 0.1 f/cm3 OEL when the outside concentration was below 10 f/cm3 (band 1 to band 4). From band 3, no measurements complied with the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. Different types of coveralls One study reported the adverse effects of coveralls. A polyethylene suit may increase the body temperature more than a ventilated impermeable polyvinyl (PVC) coverall, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 °C, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.42; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Where the outside asbestos concentration is below 0.1 f/cm3, SARS and PAPRs likely reduce exposure to below the proposed OEL of 0.01 f/cm3. For outside concentrations up to 10 f/cm3, all respirators may reduce exposure below the current OEL, but only SAR also below the proposed OEL. In band 5 (10 to < 100 f/cm3), full-face filtering masks may not reduce asbestos exposure below either OEL, SARs likely reduce exposure below both OELs, and there were no data for PAPRs. In band 6 (100 f/cm3 to < 1000 f/cm3), PAPRs may not reduce exposure below either OEL, and there were no data for full-face filtering masks or SARs. Some coveralls may increase body temperature more than others. Randomised studies are needed to directly compare PAPRs and SARs at higher asbestos concentrations and to assess adverse effects. Future studies should assess the effects of doffing procedures.


Asbestos , Occupational Exposure , Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , Asbestos/analysis , Asbestos/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/analysis , Respiratory Protective Devices , Bias , Masks
9.
PLoS One ; 19(5): e0299823, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38722954

BACKGROUND: Hospital infection control policies protect patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) and limit the spread of pathogens, but adherence to COVID-19 guidance varies. We examined hospital HCWs' enactment of social distancing and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, factors influencing these behaviours, and acceptability and feasibility of strategies to increase social distancing. METHODS: An online, cross-sectional survey (n = 86) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) with HCWs in two English hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (May-December 2020). The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour change underpinned survey and topic guide questions. Spearman Rho correlations examined associations between COM-B domains and behaviours. Interviews were analysed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Potential strategies to improve social distancing were selected using the Behaviour Change Wheel and discussed in a stakeholder workshop (n = 8 participants). RESULTS: Social distancing enactment was low, with 85% of participants reporting very frequently or always being in close contact with others in communal areas. PPE use was high (88% very frequently or always using PPE in typical working day). Social distancing was associated with Physical Opportunity (e.g., size of physical space), Psychological Capability (e.g., clarity of guidance), and Social Opportunity (e.g., support from managers). Use of PPE was associated with Psychological Capability (e.g., training), Physical Opportunity (e.g., availability), Social Opportunity (e.g., impact on interactions with patients), and Reflective Motivation (e.g., beliefs that PPE is effective). Local champions and team competition were viewed as feasible strategies to improve social distancing. CONCLUSIONS: It is valuable to understand and compare the drivers of individual protective behaviours; when faced with the same level of perceived threat, PPE use was high whereas social distancing was rarely enacted. Identified influences represent targets for intervention strategies in response to future infectious disease outbreaks.


COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Male , Female , England/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Adult , Pandemics/prevention & control , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Physical Distancing , Infection Control/methods
10.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 659, 2024 May 24.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38783301

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facility characteristics, such as ownership, size, and location, have been associated with patient outcomes. However, it is not known whether the outcomes of healthcare workers are associated with the characteristics of their employing healthcare facilities, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was an analysis of a nationwide registry of healthcare workers (the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) registry). Participants were surveyed on their personal, employment, and medical characteristics, as well as our primary study outcomes of COVID-19 infection, access to personal protective equipment, and burnout. Participants from healthcare sites with at least ten respondents were included, and these sites were linked to American Hospital Association data to extract information about sites, including number of beds, teaching status, urban/rural location, and for-profit status. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate linear regression models for the unadjusted and adjusted associations between healthcare facility characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 8,941 healthcare workers from 97 clinical sites were included in the study. After adjustment for participant demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities, facility for-profit status was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.02-3.03, p = .042). Micropolitan location was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19 infection after adjustment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24, 0.71, p = .002. For-profit facility status was associated with decreased odds of burnout after adjustment (aOR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.98), p = .044). CONCLUSIONS: For-profit status of employing healthcare facilities was associated with greater odds of COVID-19 diagnosis but decreased odds of burnout after adjustment for demographics, healthcare role, and medical comorbidities. Future research to understand the relationship between facility ownership status and healthcare outcomes is needed to promote wellbeing in the healthcare workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registry was prospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (trial registration number) NCT04342806, submitted April 8, 2020.


Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Health Facilities , Health Personnel , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Female , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Health Facilities/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Registries
11.
Clin Ter ; 175(3): 181-183, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38767076

Abstract: COVID-19 pandemic has increased the amount of plastic burden to environment and complexities of plastic waste management. Change in behavioral pattern with advent of this pandemic led to increased practice of hygiene and increased use of different types of personal protective equipment. Unfortunately, rapid rise in production of the PPEs (like Hazmat suit, gloves, etc.) and single-use plastics used in RT-PCR and other testing are the biggest source for increased non-biodegradable plastic waste leading to amplified burden on plastic waste management. A number of measures like prioritizing the policies directed towards changes at behavioral, social and institutional level need to be started. Also, reduction in plastic waste along with proper plastic waste management policies should be implemented. To prevent the transition from one pandemic to other; improvement in government policies with public private partnership are the need of the hour.


COVID-19 , Global Health , Plastics , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Waste Management/methods
12.
Sci Total Environ ; 929: 172488, 2024 Jun 15.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38631625

Quarantine work is widely recognized as an indispensable endeavor in curbing the propagation of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the heavy workload places workers at a heightened risk of chemical exposure and respiratory damage. Consequently, it is paramount to systematically perform health risk assessments and meticulously oversee the work by wearing personal protective equipment to minimize these risks. To assess the inhalation exposure, this study examined data on disinfectant exposure from quarantine professional users who utilized disinfectants containing quaternary ammonium compounds. Through a survey of 6,199 cases conducted by 300 quarantine professional users who actively engaged in quarantine work, we assembled a database of exposure factors derived from their utilization of spray-type disinfectants for quarantine purposes. Based on these data, we formulated an inhalation exposure algorithm, which considers the time-weighted average (TWA) air concentrations. The test results demonstrated that the industrial-grade respirator mask could prevent a minimum of 68.3 % of particles, reducing respiratory exposure. Consequently, the hazard quotient (HQ) due to disinfectant exposure also decreased. This research is essential in safeguarding the safety and health of professional users engaged in quarantine-related tasks. By implementing strict measures like health risk assessments and personal protective equipment, individuals with quarantine experience can safely carry out their quarantine work. The results of this study are expected to serve as a framework for improving policies and regulations concerning quarantine work and safeguarding the health of professional users.


COVID-19 , Disinfectants , Inhalation Exposure , Occupational Exposure , Quarantine , Quaternary Ammonium Compounds , Disinfectants/analysis , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Personal Protective Equipment
13.
PLoS One ; 19(4): e0299957, 2024.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38635680

INTRODUCTION: Ethiopia is experiencing high prevalence of occupational morbidity and disability. One of the main contributing reasons is a low utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies on PPE utilization and association with educational status among industry workers were largely inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to pool the magnitude of PPE utilization and its association with educational status among industry workers in Ethiopia. METHOD: A compressive search of international databases and libraries including Scopus, PubMed, MedNar, Embase, MEDLINE, the web of science, Google Scholar, the JBI Library, African Journals Online, and Science direct will be carried out to locate published reports. Two independent reviewers will screen the records for inclusion using standardized JBI tools. Before extracting and synthesizing data, the selected studies will undergo a rigorous critical appraisal. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Cochrane Q-test and I2-test statistics will be used to assess the heterogeneity between studies. If necessary, meta-regression and subgroup analyses will be conducted to explore potential reasons for any inconsistency and heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to assess the effect of a single study on the pooled magnitude estimates. Funnel plots, along with Egger's and Begg's tests, will be used to assess the presence of publication bias. PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO, CRD42022364562.


Educational Status , Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , Ethiopia/epidemiology , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Prevalence , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Research Design
14.
Med Lav ; 115(2): e2024012, 2024 Apr 24.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38686575

Several antiblastic drugs (ADs) are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and/or toxic for reproduction. Despite established guidelines and safe handling technologies, ADs contamination of the work environments could occur in healthcare settings, leading to potential exposure of healthcare staff. This systematic review aims to investigate the main techniques and practices for assessing ADs occupational exposure in healthcare settings. The reviewed studies unveil that workplace contamination by ADs appears to be a still-topical problem in healthcare settings. These issues are linked to difficulties in guaranteeing: (i) the adherence to standardized protocols when dealing with ADs, (ii) the effective use of personal protective equipment by operators involved in the administration or management of ADs, (iii) a comprehensive training of the healthcare personnel, and (iv) a thorough health surveillance of exposed workers. A "multi-parametric" approach emerges as a desirable strategy for exposure assessment. In parallel, exposure assessment should coincide with the introduction of novel technologies aimed at minimizing exposure (i.e., risk management). Assessment must consider various departments and health operators susceptible to ADs contamination, with a focus extended beyond worst-case scenarios, also considering activities like surface cleaning and logistical tasks related to ADs management. A comprehensive approach in ADs risk assessment enables the evaluation of distinct substance behaviors and subsequent exposure routes, affording a more holistic understanding of potential risks.


Occupational Exposure , Humans , Risk Assessment , Health Personnel , Drug Compounding , Personal Protective Equipment , Health Facilities
15.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) ; 53(1): 63-72, 2024.
Article En, Es | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38653662

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the magnitude of mental illnesses such as depression, not only in the general population, but also in healthcare personnel. However, in Peru the prevalence, and the associated factors for developing depression in healthcare personnel, are not known. The objective was to determine the prevalence and identify the factors associated with depression in healthcare personnel, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: An analytical cross-sectional study was carried out from May to September in healthcare establishments. A sample of 136 health workers were included and a survey was applied to collect the data. Depression as a dependent variable was measured using the Zung self-report scale. To identify the associated factors, the bivariate and multivariate analysis was performed by logistic regression with STATA v 14. RESULTS: The prevalence of depression was 8.8% (95%CI, 4.64-14.90). Having a family member or friend who had died from COVID-19 was associated with depression (OR = 6.78; 95%CI, 1.39-32.90; p = 0.017). Whereas the use of personal protective equipment was found to be a protective factor against developing depression (OR = 0.03; 95%CI, 0.004-0.32; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 10 healthcare professionals and technicians developed depression during the COVID-19 pandemic in this study. In addition, having relatives or friends who had died from COVID-19 was negatively associated with depression and use of personal protective equipment was identified as a protective factor.


COVID-19 , Depression , Health Personnel , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Peru/epidemiology , Male , Female , Adult , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Prevalence , Depression/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Personal Protective Equipment , Young Adult
17.
J Occup Environ Hyg ; 21(5): 353-364, 2024 05.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38560919

Structural firefighters are exposed to a complex set of contaminants and combustion byproducts, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Additionally, recent studies have found structural firefighters' skin may be exposed to multiple chemical compounds via permeation or penetration of chemical byproducts through or around personal protective equipment (PPE). This mannequin-based study evaluated the effectiveness of four different PPE conditions with varying contamination control measures (incorporating PPE interface design features and particulate blocking materials) to protect against ingress of several VOCs in a smoke exposure chamber. We also investigated the effectiveness of long-sleeve base layer clothing to provide additional protection against skin contamination. Outside gear air concentrations were measured from within the smoke exposure chamber at the breathing zone, abdomen, and thigh heights. Personal air concentrations were collected from mannequins under PPE at the same general heights and under the base layer at abdomen and thigh heights. Sampled contaminants included benzene, toluene, styrene, and naphthalene. Results suggest that VOCs can readily penetrate the ensembles. Workplace protection factors (WPFs) were near one for benzene and toluene and increased with increasing molecular weight of the contaminants. WPFs were generally lower under hoods and jackets compared to under pants. For all PPE conditions, the pants appeared to provide the greatest overall protection against ingress of VOCs, but this may be due in part to the lower air concentrations toward the floor (and cuffs of pants) relative to the thigh-height outside gear concentrations used in calculating the WPFs. Providing added interface control measures and adding particulate-blocking materials appeared to provide a protective benefit against less-volatile chemicals, like naphthalene and styrene.


Air Pollutants, Occupational , Firefighters , Naphthalenes , Occupational Exposure , Protective Clothing , Volatile Organic Compounds , Volatile Organic Compounds/analysis , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/analysis , Air Pollutants, Occupational/analysis , Humans , Benzene/analysis , Toluene/analysis , Personal Protective Equipment , Styrene/analysis , Manikins , Smoke/analysis , Workplace
18.
Soc Work Public Health ; 39(5): 458-467, 2024 Jul 03.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38563813

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is a set of tools used by workers to protect all or part of their body against the potential danger of work accidents in the work area. The use of personal protective equipment is often considered unimportant by workers, especially those working in dangerous and risky areas. The discipline of workers in using personal protective equipment is still low, so the risk of work accidents that can endanger workers is quite large. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between perception, motivation, knowledge and supervision of the behavior of using PPE at PT. Maruki International Indonesia, Tamalanrea District, Makassar City, South Sulawesi Province. This type of research is analytical research with a cross-sectional study approach with a total sample of 41 people. The results showed that there was a relationship between perceptions and the behavior of using PPE (p = .004), there was a relationship between motivation and behavior in using PPE (p = .002), there was no relationship between knowledge and behavior in using PPE (p = .814), there was a relationship between supervision and usage behavior. PPE (p = .008). It is recommended that workers be obedient and disciplined to use PPE (personal protective equipment) according to the regulations and make it a work norm, provide IEC PPE in all work locations, and increase supervision of the use of PPE through improved management.


Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , Indonesia , Cross-Sectional Studies , Male , Female , Adult , Surveys and Questionnaires , Motivation , Middle Aged , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Occupational Health
20.
Anticancer Res ; 44(4): 1487-1489, 2024 Apr.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38537956

Palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE) is a common side effect of chemotherapy treatment in patients with cancer. The exact pathophysiologic mechanisms of the development of PPE remain unclear. Here, we report two important physiological functions of carotenoids without hydroxyl groups (α-carotene, ß-carotene, γ-carotene, ξ-carotene, lycopene, phytoene, phytofluene and their isomers) in the stratum corneum (SC) of glabrous skin: The powerful antioxidant protection of the integrity of the SC components against the destructive action of free radicals and maintaining the skin barrier function by the creation of an orthorhombic organization of intercellular lipids within lamellae using carotenoids as a skeleton. The dual protective role of carotenoids without hydroxyl groups is important for both healthy skin and, in the authors' opinion, for the skin of chemotherapy-treated patients against the development of PPE, as the chemotherapy-induced reduction of the carotenoid concentration in the stratum corneum considerably weakens the skin resistance to cytotoxic and other adverse reactions.


Carotenoids , Neoplasms , Humans , Lycopene , Carotenoids/pharmacology , Carotenoids/therapeutic use , beta Carotene , Personal Protective Equipment
...