The impact of keeping a religious beard in the COVID-19 pandemic: an online cross-sectional survey study exploring experiences of male medical healthcare professionals

  1. Amer Hamed
  2. Asam Latif
  3. Mohammad Haris
  4. Sufyan Patel
  5. Muhammad I Patel
  6. Syed Abdur Rahman Mustafa
  7. Omeair Khan
  8. Ahmad Shoaib
  9. Salman Waqar

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In the UK, there has been a disproportionate impact of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on individuals from Black Asian & Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups including those working in the NHS. Many male NHS staff have been asked to remove their beards for the ‘fit test’. However this can have negative implications on their spiritual, psychological & emotional wellbeing. . This paper surveyed the responses of 469 healthcare BAME healthcare professionals (HCPs) with beards regarding the challenges they face in regard to personal protective equipment (PPE), mask fit testing and attitude of employers and colleagues. Professional discrimination through fit testing rejection, unavailability or inadequate PPE and the pressure to shave beards were reported to be unpleasant and underreported outcomes of the pandemic. NHS trusts and hospitals need to adjust their policies to ensure inclusivity in their COVID-19 arrangements.International Journal of Human and Health Sciences Vol. 06 No. 01 January’22 Page: 113-122

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.31344/ijhhs.v6i1.386
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.01.20224022: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: A qualifying question was asked at the beginning of the survey and completion of the questionnaire implied informed consent.
    IRB: Rather, approval from the BIMA ethics committee was sufficient.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Analysis Plan: The data was downloaded from Google Forms and inputted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    After cleaning and consistency checks, the data was transferred to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 and was again checked for consistency and correctness.
    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: For the purpose of this cross-sectional study, social media platforms were used for disseminating the survey. The anonymity of respondents in this survey would facilitate honest reflections and the ability to speak freely on their sensitivities with regards to the survey. From the dataset gathered, it is clear that the majority of respondents were Muslims and there was relatively little representation of Jewish and Sikh respondents. It is also difficult to objectively assess how representative this survey would be of the NHS given that respondents were responding to social media advertisement to participate in the survey and some respondents were working in other countries. Furthermore, the sample was self-selected thus it may not equally reflect opinions and practices across the NHS. The cross-sectional nature of the study doesn’t take into account changes in opinions of healthcare staff and the practices across different hospitals over time to adapt to the attitudes of staff, the needs of clinicians and the effect on practice as the pandemic eases. On the other hand, this descriptive study does look at how practices within the NHS were around the peak of the pandemic and highlights important issues which may have not been considered yet, which significantly affected healthcare workers in a practical and spiritual sense. Further research: Further research will be needed to expand more on these important issues and challenges facing healthcare profe...

    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 10.1101/2020.11.01.20224022v1 on medRxiv