User Feedback and Effects of Colloidal Oatmeal Coated Gloves Compared with Standard Nitrile Examination Gloves Among Health Care Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Introduction: Gloves are a vital component of protective personal equipment for health care workers (HCWs), but prolonged use can contribute to hand dermatitis. Colloidal oatmeal coated (COC) nitrile gloves with moisturizing and anti-pruritic properties have been introduced in health care settings in recent years. This is the first formal evaluation of their use in comparison to standard nitrile examination (SNE) gloves. Objective: To evaluate the effects on skin barrier and acceptance of COC nitrile gloves in comparison to SNE gloves in HCWs. Methods: HCWs from inpatient wards at a tertiary hospital were invited to participate, with wards randomly assigned to using only COC or SNE gloves for the study duration. Demographic data and photographs of participants’ hands were collected before and after the study. Participants completed a post-intervention structured questionnaire exploring their experience with the gloves. The photographs were assessed for hand dermatitis using the hand eczema severity index score. Results: COC gloves were shown to have higher acceptance and more positive effects on participants’ skin barrier. COC glove wearers recorded higher satisfaction on various questionnaire items. Conclusion: This study demonstrates high participant satisfaction and acceptance of COC gloves compared with SNE gloves in areas such as comfort, skin hydration, and smoothness. A longer study duration and larger sample size could further assess the clinical impacts on hand dermatitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".