Cochrane · systematic review · CD010157
Behavioural interventions to promote workers' use of respiratory protective equipment
Luong Thanh, BY, Laopaiboon, M, Koh, D, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
WorkAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
13
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 7.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 11 · 84.6%Low 1 · 7.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Training versus no intervention
Population: Healthcare workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Properly fitting RPE at 6 months Training vs no intervention | RR 1.17 [0.97, 1.41] | 1 study · 83 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Properly fitting RPE at 6 months Training vs no intervention | RR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42] | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Conventional training plus additions versus conventional training
Population: Health workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Observed appropriate RPE use Conventional training plus additions vs conventional training | RR 1.41 [0.96, 2.07] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Correct use of RPE as part of full‐body PPE ‐ Donning Conventional training plus additions vs conventional training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Correct use of RPE as part of full‐body PPE ‐ Doffing Conventional training plus additions vs conventional training | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Education versus no intervention
Population: Workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcomes# Education vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Use of RPE most of the time ‐ 3 years after intervention Education vs no intervention | RR 1.69 [1.1, 2.58] | 1 study · 170 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reported RPE use among farmers ‐ Short term Education vs no intervention | RR 1.07 [0.91, 1.26] | 1 study · 105 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reported RPE use among farmers ‐ Long term Education vs no intervention | RR 0.99 [0.84, 1.17] | 2 studies · 206 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Use of safety mask while working Education vs no intervention | RR 2.05 [0.74, 5.69] | 1 study · 44 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fit tested for N95 Education vs no intervention | RR 0.32 [0.07, 1.49] | 1 study · 52 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Use of N95 mask Education vs no intervention | RR 4.56 [1.84, 11.33] | 1 study · 52 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Motivational interview‐based education versus traditional lectures
Population: Factory workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Use of RPE as part of full‐body PPE (score on checklist) Motivational interview‐based education vs traditional lectures | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |