MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perspectives on the use of personal protective equipment by acute care providers caring for patients on COVID-19 medical and critical care units

2025· article· en· W4411407760 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infection Control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal protective equipmentContext (archaeology)MedicineInfection controlPandemicHealth careNursingWorkloadStaffingPatient safetyBurnoutMisinformationSafety cultureMedical emergencyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Intensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies have provided strong evidence that personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively reduces the risk of transmitting highly infectious emerging diseases among healthcare providers (HCPs). However, literature examining this phenomenon specifically within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic remains limited. This study explored the behaviours and contributing factors influencing HCPs’ use of PPE, as well as how they established a sense of safety while caring for patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with HCPs who provided direct care to patients with COVID-19 in the medical and critical care units of a large urban hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia. An interpretive description approach was used to understand staff narratives and identify key themes. Results: Staff reported high confidence in their PPE practices, citing factors such as emerging evidence and guidance, infection prevention and control (IPAC) protocols, occupational experience, specific PPE workflows, and point-of-care risk assessments. Within the broader context of the COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia, staff identified several factors that influenced their PPE behaviours: PPE accessibility and availability, staff education, environmental reminders, staffing levels, environmental cleaning, physical space, time constraints, patient acuity and workload, PPE fatigue, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccination status, occupational culture, and systemic trust. Conclusions: Overall, our findings highlight the importance of a relational approach in supporting HCPs to keep both patients and colleagues safe during the pandemic. By fostering trust and open communication, infection control practitioners (ICPs) can help HCPs navigate the challenges of misinformation and psychological stress. Identifying the factors that shape PPE behaviour enables ICPs to design targeted interventions that address frontline staff needs and promote effective PPE practices. Ultimately, the development of realistic, context-sensitive guidelines — along with addressing the mental and informational challenges faced by HCPs – is crucial to enhancing safety and adherence to infection control practices in future public health emergencies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it