Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1093/annweh/wxab018 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/annweh/wxab018 33876214!8083207!33876214     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Ann+Work+Expo+Health 2021 ; 65 (8): 998-1003 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33876214|t=2021. Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco |pdf=|usr=}}{{33876214}} gab.com Text Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco JO: Ann Work Expo Health http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33876214 #FOAvip OBJECTIVES: Health care workers (HCWs) adopted several protective measures, including hand hygiene and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the frequent use of these preventive measures can lead to skin reactions. Our study aimed to determine the frequency of these reactions in Northern Morocco. In addition, we also looked at the risk factors and the consequences of these injuries on work efficiency and performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous online survey was used to collect data, which was sent to 500 health workers in the study region. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data on IBM SPSS software. RESULTS: In total, 273/500 responded to the questionnaire (55%). For the participants' profession, 41% were doctors, 32% were nursing staff, and 26% held other jobs. The general prevalence rate of adverse reactions for all health workers was (80%), including skin problems: after wearing goggles (58%), after wearing surgical masks and respirators (57%), after handwashing and wearing gloves (45%), after wearing a face shield (23%), and after wearing protective clothing (11%). Bleach immersion was highly significantly associated with hand reaction (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.77-4.90; P < 0.001). Moreover, we found a statistically significant association between hand cream use more than twice daily and fewer reactions (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.98-3.77; P = 0.038). The skin reactions related to goggles use were also significantly associated with use duration (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.988-3.12; P = 0.05). Similarly, wearing masks and N95 respirators and their related adverse reactions were significantly associated with use duration (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.20-0.7; P = 0.02). In addition, adverse reactions of regular use of protective clothing were related to the frequency of its use per shift (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.47-8.54; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey-based study showed that the prevalence of these skin reactions in our context should not be neglected. The length of daily wearing time and the frequency of PPE uses were the most implicated factors. More attention must be paid to these reactions for better care of HCWs during these critical times. Twit Text FOAVip Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco ????Ann Work Expo Health http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33876214 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33876214 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33876214}}</ref> Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: A Survey in Northern Morocco #MMPMID33876214 Marraha F; Al Faker I; Charif F; Chahoub H; Benyamna Y; Rahmani N; Kabbou S; Rkiek Y; Najdi A; Gallouj S Ann Work Expo Health 2021[Oct]; 65 (8): 998-1003 PMID33876214show ga OBJECTIVES: Health care workers (HCWs) adopted several protective measures, including hand hygiene and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the frequent use of these preventive measures can lead to skin reactions. Our study aimed to determine the frequency of these reactions in Northern Morocco. In addition, we also looked at the risk factors and the consequences of these injuries on work efficiency and performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous online survey was used to collect data, which was sent to 500 health workers in the study region. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data on IBM SPSS software. RESULTS: In total, 273/500 responded to the questionnaire (55%). For the participants' profession, 41% were doctors, 32% were nursing staff, and 26% held other jobs. The general prevalence rate of adverse reactions for all health workers was (80%), including skin problems: after wearing goggles (58%), after wearing surgical masks and respirators (57%), after handwashing and wearing gloves (45%), after wearing a face shield (23%), and after wearing protective clothing (11%). Bleach immersion was highly significantly associated with hand reaction (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.77-4.90; P < 0.001). Moreover, we found a statistically significant association between hand cream use more than twice daily and fewer reactions (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.98-3.77; P = 0.038). The skin reactions related to goggles use were also significantly associated with use duration (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.988-3.12; P = 0.05). Similarly, wearing masks and N95 respirators and their related adverse reactions were significantly associated with use duration (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.20-0.7; P = 0.02). In addition, adverse reactions of regular use of protective clothing were related to the frequency of its use per shift (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.47-8.54; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey-based study showed that the prevalence of these skin reactions in our context should not be neglected. The length of daily wearing time and the frequency of PPE uses were the most implicated factors. More attention must be paid to these reactions for better care of HCWs during these critical times. |*COVID-19[MESH] |*Occupational Exposure[MESH] |Health Personnel[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Morocco[MESH] |Personal Protective Equipment[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH]Skin Reactions to Personal Protective Equipment among First-Line COVID(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing