Assessment of Masks Used by Healthcare Workers: Development and Validation of a Mask Qualitative Assessment Tool (MQAT)
Safety and Health at Work, ISSN: 2093-7911, Vol: 13, Issue: 3, Page: 364-371
2022
- 18Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures18
- Readers18
- 18
Article Description
Respiratory masks can provide healthcare workers with protection from biological hazards when they have good performance. There is a direct relationship between the visual specifications of a mask and its efficacy; thus, the aim of this study was to develop tools for qualitative assessment of the performance of masks used by healthcare workers. A mixed-methods design was used to develop a qualitative assessment tool for medical face masks (MFM) and particle filtering half masks (PFHM). The development of domains and items was undertaken using observation and interviews, the opinions of an expert panel, and a review of texts and international standards. The second phase evaluated the psychometric properties of tools. Finally, the validated Mask Qualitative Assessment Tools (MQAT) were used to assess six samples from 10 brands of the two types of masks. MQAT-MFM and MQAT-PHFM shared 42 items across seven domains: “cleanliness,” “design,” “marking, labeling and packaging,” “mask layers,” “mask strap,” “materials and construction,” and “nose clip.” MQAT-MFM included one additional item. MQAT-PHFM included another nine items associated with an eighth “Practical Performance” domain, and the valve version had another additional “Exhalation Valve” domain and six items. The evaluation indicated 80% compliance for MFM and 71% compliance for PFHM. “Marking, labeling and packaging” and “Layers” were associated with the least compliance in both types of masks and should be checked carefully for defining mask quality. MQAT can be used for immediate screening and initial assessment of MFM and PHFM through appearance, simple tools, and visual inspection.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791122000701; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2022.05.004; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85132842263&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36156866; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2093791122000701; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2022.05.004
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know