Prevalence of Hand Dermatitis in Inpatient Nurses at a United States Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand dermatitis is a significant problem among inpatient nurses. Accurate population-based data on the prevalence and risk factors for hand dermatitis in this group are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of hand dermatitis in inpatient nurses at a US hospital. METHODS: Each nursing unit in a single hospital was visited twice by a single physician. All nurses working at the time of each visit were questioned and examined. No nurses were enrolled twice. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (92 of 167) of the nurses had hand dermatitis. Among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses, the prevalence was 65% (35 of 54); among non-ICU nurses, the prevalence was 50% (57 of 113). In nurses with self-reported atopic dermatitis, the prevalence was 71% (12 of 17); in nurses without self-reported atopic dermatitis, it was 53% (80 of 150). Data collection on variables such as hand hygiene and glove use relied on subject recall and was considered unreliable. There was a low prevalence of atopic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hand dermatitis affects over 50% of inpatient nurses. Hand dermatitis appears to be more common in the ICU setting and in nurses with a self-reported history of atopy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".