Hot days and Covid-19: Online survey of nurses and nursing assistants to assess occupational heat stress in Germany during summer 2020

  1. Yvette Jegodka
  2. Lena Lagally
  3. Hanna Mertes
  4. Katharina Deering
  5. Julia Schoierer
  6. Barbara Buchberger
  7. Stephan Bose-O'Reilly

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100031
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.29.21250592: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Participants had to give informed consent before engaging, by ticking a button within this prospectively anonymised questionnaire, that they agree to participate.
    IRB: According to the standards of the ethical committee of the medical faculty at our university, LMU, no ethical clearance is needed for such a research, built on prospectively anonymised questionnaires.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The construction of this survey and the discussion of the results were supported by a literature search using the Pubmed, Google Scholar and ResearchGate databases.
    Pubmed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    ResearchGate
    suggested: (ResearchGate, RRID:SCR_006505)
    Statistical methods: Completely and incompletely answered questionnaires were analysed using both, Chi-square tests for independence and Fisher’s exact tests (SPSS version 24).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Our survey was not designed to address whether temperature and ‘clothing discomfort’ applied independently of one another, or whether the elevated temperature exacerbated existing discomfort from wearing PPE. One way of distinguishing both possibilities would be a randomized control study with four groups of nurses, that would or would not wear PPE and are exposed to normal or hot room temperature. The limitations of this study are imbalances in the sample (distribution of registered nurses, nursing assistants, geriatric nurses) and the possibility of a selection bias in favour of the participation of dissatisfied older employees. Moreover, the survey was done exclusively with nurses in Germany. Selection bias is also possible due to the participation of nursing professionals associated with professional associations and online publishers; we did not assess from which geographic region the participants came. This group of participants may epitomize employees with special characteristics that are therefore not representative of healthcare workers in general.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.29.21250592 on medRxiv