Associations between personal protective equipment and nursing staff stress during the COVID‐19 pandemic

  1. Manuela Hoedl
  2. Doris Eglseer
  3. Silvia Bauer

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1111/jonm.13400
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.06.20164129: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIACUC: Even though all data were collected anonymously, we obtained the required ethical approval from the responsible ethical committee.
    Consent: All participants were asked to provide their written informed consent in the first question of the online survey to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation issued by the European Union.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analysis: We used SPSS version 26 for data analysis (33).
    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:
    Strengths and limitations: The first strength of this study is that it is the first one, to our knowledge, that describes the influence of wearing personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. Another strength is that our sample included more than 2500 nurses. One limitation of our study might be that we started the survey in mid-May, nearly two months after the COVID-19 pandemic began in Austria. Because we asked nurses retrospectively about their use of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic, some perceptions could have been distorted. Conclusions: This study was carried out to investigate the association between PPE and stress levels among nursing staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. Nearly all participating nurses used face masks or FFP masks. This might be an indication of a high level of compliance among Austrian nurses regarding the national as well as international regulations and highlights the key role played by nurses in such pandemics. Our results also show that increased mask-wearing time led to increased levels of stress. These results suggest that (inter-) national regulations on how and when to use PPE should also include a maximum duration of time for wearing each type of mask. Such regulations could help to prevent work-related stress, particularly in the case of future epidemics, and avoid burnout among nursing staff or even nurses leaving their jobs. The consequences of both of these negative outcomes should be considered in li...

    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 10.1101/2020.08.06.20164129v1 on medRxiv