Suchergebnisse

AbstractBullying intervention research points to the important role of children standing up for victims (defending behavior). This study provides an initial look at how certain parenting practices may be generally related to the socialization of defending behavior among children. Defenders typically enjoy significant social status, allowing them the social capital to intervene. With this in mind, we also assess how parenting and children's social preference scores might uniquely or interactively predict defending behavior. This cross‐sectional study employs a sample of 219 (101 boys) fourth‐grade children living in the Western United States. Both mothers and fathers self‐reported their authoritative, authoritarian, and psychologically controlling parenting practices. A peer sociometric assessment provided each child's social preference score. Peer nominations provided each child's reputation for defending behaviors. Multiple regression results showed that a few of the parenting dimensions significantly predicted girls' defending behavior above and beyond peer social preference. In contrast, the defending behavior scores of boys were unrelated to parenting. Finally, we used interaction analyses to probe whether the association between defending and parenting meaningfully varies according to children's levels of social preference. We did not find evidence to support this. We discuss the ramifications of these findings for future research.

Abstract

Introduction
Upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) are common and a common cause of sick-leave for healthcare workers, and furthermore pose a threat especially for patients susceptible to other diseases. Sufficient use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) may protect both the workers and the patients. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to study the association between use of RPE and URTI in a real-life setting. The aim of this study was to examine if failure of RPE or non-compliance with RPE guidelines increases the risk of non-COVID-19 URTI symptoms among healthcare workers.


Methods
In a longitudinal cohort study, we collected self-reported data daily on work tasks, use of RPE, and URTI symptoms among healthcare workers with patient contact in 2 Danish Regions in 2 time periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The association between failure of RPE or non-compliance with RPE guidelines and URTI symptoms was analyzed separately by generalized linear models. Persons tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were censored from the analyses. The 2 waves of data collection were analyzed separately, as there were differences in recommendations of RPE during the 2 waves.


Results
We found that for healthcare workers performing work tasks with a risk of transmission of viruses or bacteria, failure of RPE was associated with an increased risk of URTI symptoms, RR: 1.65[0.53–5.14] in wave 1 and RR: 1.30[0.56–3.03] in wave 2. Also non-compliance with RPE guidelines was associated with an increased risk of URTI symptoms compared to the use of RPE in wave 1, RR: 1.28[0.87–1.87] and wave 2, RR: 1.39[1.01–1.91]. Stratifying on high- versus low-risk tasks showed that the risk related to failure and non-compliance was primarily associated with high-risk tasks, although not statistically significant.


Discussion
The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and thus may be affected by other preventive measures in society. However, this gave the opportunity to study the use of RPE in a real-life setting, also in departments that did not previously use RPE. The circumstances in the 2 time periods of data collection differed and were analyzed separately and thus the sample size was limited and affected the precision of the estimates.


Conclusion
Failures of RPE and non-compliance with RPE guidelines may increase the risk of URTI, compared to those who reported use of RPE as recommended. The implications of these findings are that the use of RPE to prevent URTI could be considered, especially while performing high-risk tasks where other prevention strategies are not achievable.

Abstract

Introduction
To treat and properly care for COVID-19 patients it is vital to have healthy healthcare workers to ensure the continued function of the healthcare system and to prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to patients, co-workers, and the community. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can prevent healthcare workers from being infected with and transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Experience and training are pivotal to ensure optimal protection. This study aims to examine the use and failure of PPE and compliance with PPE guidelines during the first and the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Danish healthcare workers.


Methods
Healthcare workers from the Central Denmark Region and the Capital Region of Denmark were invited to participate April–June 2020 during the first wave and November 2020–April 2021 during the second wave. Day-by-day, participants reported work procedures, use and failure of PPE, and compliance with PPE guidelines. Register-based information on sex, age, department, and profession was available for all participants.


Results
In total, 21 684 and 10 097 healthcare workers participated during the first and the second wave, respectively. During the first wave, 1.7% used filtering face piece-2 or -3 (FFP2 or FFP3) respirators and 8.2% used face masks [fluid resistant (type IIR) masks, masks with visor (typically type IIR), and other unspecified face masks] during physical contact with patients. During the second wave, the corresponding figures increased to 17.8% and 80.7%. During respiratory procedures, the use of FFP2 or FFP3 respirators increased from 5.6 to 24.3%, and the use of face masks from 14.7 to 77.8%. The no PPE use decreased from 21.3% during the first wave to 0.4% in the second wave, during respiratory procedures. Total PPE failures decreased from 0.7 to 0.4% from the first to second wave. The proportion not complying with PPE guidelines declined from 3.6 to 2.2% during physical contact with patients and from 6.5 to 4.6% during respiratory procedures. PPE failure and non-compliance varied by age, sex and type of department. Frequent reasons for non-compliance were forgetfulness and lack of time, and during the first but not during the second wave, limited availability of PPE.


Conclusion
We found a substantial increase in the use of PPE and a substantial decrease in PPE failures from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 in Denmark. However, there is still a need for continuous focus on compliance in use of PPE among healthcare workers.