Prevalence and acceptance of glove wearing practice among general population when visiting high risk are during local COVID-19 outbreak

  1. Gobi Hariyanayagam Gunasekaran
  2. Sera Selvanthansundram Gunasekaran
  3. Shargunan Selvanthan Gunasekaran
  4. Fouzia Hanim Bt Abdul Halim
  5. Nur Syafina Insyirah Binti Zaimi
  6. Nor Amirah Binti Abdul Halim

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Healthcare authorities have generally advised against wearing glove by the general population. However, the use of gloves has become a common sight in public places raising the question of the necessity of glove wearing practice by the general population

Objective

This study aims to investigate the prevalence and types of glove used as well as the acceptance of the glove practice by individuals visiting the high-risk area during Covid-19 pandemic.

Setting

This prospective observational study was conducted among individuals visiting a wet market and district specialist hospital During Covid-19 pandemic. The required data was recorded based on observation by trained data collectors who were stationed at the strategic entry point.

Methods

Individuals entering through dedicated entry point were observed for the type, category and practice of wearing personal protective equipment. Inclusion criteria for this study were any individuals entering the facilities from entry points without respiratory symptoms. Exclusion criteria for this study were individuals less than 2 years old, visiting the emergency department, facility staff, individuals who are suspected of multiple entry and individuals who are exiting the treatment facility entrance. Patients were categorized into two groups of acceptable and unacceptable glove practice. The Pearson chi-square was used to test for differences in investigated variables in the univariate setting.

Main outcome measure

Prevalence, acceptance of glove wearing practice.

Results

A total of 75 individuals (2.3%) compromising of 45 (60.0%) individuals from hospitals and 30 (40.0%) individuals from wet markets were seen wearing glove amongst 3322 individuals observed during the data collection period. A higher proportion of individuals visiting wet market (30.0%) were observed with unacceptable glove practice compared to individuals visiting the hospital (8.9%), χ 2 (1) = 5.60, p = .018. Similarly, a Higher proportion of glove use among non-Malay (53.3%) compared to Malay (46.7%) was observed in hospital compared to a higher proportion of glove use among Malay compared to non-Malay (16.7%) visiting wet market, χ 2 (1) = 10.20, p = .001. As for glove use, we found that male were using more medical-grade glove (78.8%) compared to non-medical grade glove (21.2%) while an equal amount of medical (50.0%) and non-medical grade glove (50.0%) was used among female, χ 2 (1) = 6.546, p = .011. Besides, we found that higher proportion of individual using medical-grade glove was using medical grade facemask (68.3%) which was similar to the proportion of individuals using non-medical glove was using non-medical facemask (66.7%), χ 2 (1) = 5.25, p = .022.

Conclusion

We present the prevalence and characteristics of glove wearing practice in high-risk location during the current COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia. Facing a worldwide public health emergency with limited effective clinical treatment, the role of glove-wearing in mitigating COVID-19 transmission is questionable. If needed, the compliance to proper glove-wearing could be improved through targeted public health education

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117564: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableGender was categorised as either male or female while patients ethnicity was categorised into Malay or Non-Malay to reflect population distribution (24).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).
    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117564v1 on medRxiv