Latex Glove–Related Symptoms Among Health Care Workers: A Self-Report Questionnaire-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of latex gloves by health care workers (HCWs) can lead to multiple symptoms: eczema, contact urticaria, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, asthma, and anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to reveal the prevalence of latex glove-related symptoms of HCWs at Siriraj Hospital and to determine risk factors associated with those symptoms associated with the use of latex gloves. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were sent to 6880 HCWs who were working at Siriraj Hospital and using latex rubber gloves in their duty. RESULTS: The questionnaire response rate was 65.8%. Of 4529 respondents, the male-to-female ratio was 1:8.6 and the mean age was 34.3 years. The majority of respondents were nurses (83%). The prevalence of glove-related symptoms among the HCWs is 13.3%. Glove-related cutaneous and noncutaneous symptoms were found in 11.3% and 5.9% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital housekeepers emerged as the job with the significantly higher prevalence rate of glove-related symptoms than that of the other job categories. Factors associated with glove-related cutaneous symptoms are frequency and duration of glove use, history of atopy, and history of allergy to fruit cross-reacting with latex. The quantity of glove use, history of atopy, and allergy to fruits cross-reacting with latex are risk factors for the occurrence of glove-related noncutaneous symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".