Health and care workers’ perceptions of PPE and physical distancing for COVID-19: A qualitative evidence synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE) and physical distancing interventions for COVID-19 infection prevention and control (IPC), low uptake among health and care workers persists. Aim: To synthesise evidence from primary qualitative research exploring the perceptions and experiences of health and care workers on the use of PPE and physical distancing in the context of COVID-19. Setting: Healthcare settings including care homes. Method: An electronic database search was conducted using search terms based on the inclusion criteria, and the search strategy was peer-reviewed by a team of information scientists. Thirty qualitative studies were sampled after eligibility screening independently by two review authors. Synthesis was performed using the thematic synthesis approach. The confidence in each review finding was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations; Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Results: Fifteen analytical themes were identified. Health and care workers valued the use of PPE in patient care. The sense of value was heightened by perceived susceptibility to infection with COVID-19, the need to deliver optimal patient care and the desire to protect family members. Service delivery, clinical workflows, the absence of visual cues for spatial separation and physical infrastructure hindered adherence to physical distancing guidelines. Conclusion: The gap between IPC guidelines and their implementation is an important health system barrier to PPE use and physical distancing in healthcare settings. Contribution: This review provides useful insights on key considerations for planning and implementing IPC in healthcare settings.
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 | 0.065 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".