A web survey to assess the use efficacy of personnel protective materials among allied health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic at North-East India
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The rising pandemic is resulting in increased usage of personnel protective equipment in the hospital and community. The efficient and effective use of appropriate personal protective equipment will help assure its availability and healthcare provider safety. The purpose of this study was to assess the use efficacy of PPE among health care workers through a web based survey during the pandemic. the response rate of the survey was 66.75%. 35.2% gave a full rating on a point of 5 regarding the control measures taken by the hospital, 39% of respondents did not use the PPE, 90.6% used a surgical mask while 65.9% wore the disposable gloves and only 47.6% wore the goggles/face shield More than half the respondents did not wear the shoe-cover. 97.4% used the hand sanitizer and around 97% maintained hand hygiene practice.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.08.20125708: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Participants had to answer yes or no in the inform consent before the formal survey, to confirm the willingness to participate voluntarily. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources The analysis was performed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS (Version −20.0). Statistical Package for the Social Sciencessuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)SPSSsuggested: (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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.08.20125708: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: Participants had to answer yes or no in the inform consent before the formal survey, to confirm the willingness to participate voluntarily. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources The analysis was performed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS (Version −20.0). Statistical Package for the Social Sciencessuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)SPSSsuggested: (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.
-
