The contribution of respiratory and hearing protection use to psychological distress in the workplace: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Workers from various industries use personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, respirators, and hearing protection to reduce their exposures to workplace hazards. Many studies have evaluated the physiological impacts of PPE use, but few have assessed the psychological impacts. The aim of the present study was to carry out a scoping review to compile existing evidence and determine the extent of knowledge on workplace mask, respirator or hearing protection use as a psychosocial hazard (stressor) that could result in a stress response and potentially lead to psychological injury. METHODS: The scoping review followed recognized methods and was conducted using Ovid Emcare, PubMed, Sage Journals, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, Google Scholar and preprint databases (OSF Preprints and medRxiv). Articles on the stressors associated with the use of masks, respirators, and hearing protection were included. The extracted data included author(s) name, year of publication, title of article, study design, population data, stressors assessed, and key findings. RESULTS: We retrieved 650 articles after removal of duplicates, of which 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion for review. Identified factors associated with PPE use that could potentially create a stress response were identified: communication impacts, physical impacts, psychological illness symptoms, cognitive impacts, and perceived PPE-related impacts. Evidence for respirators suggest that there may be psychological injury associated with their use. However, hearing protection appears to have a protective effect in reducing psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and aggression. CONCLUSIONS: Mask or respirator use may lead to an increase in work-related stress. Whereas hearing protection may have protective effects against psychological symptoms and improves speech intelligibility. More research is needed to better understand potential psychosocial impacts of mask, respirator and/or hearing protection use.

Using touchscreen mobile devices-when, where and how: a one-week field study.

This cross-sectional study explored the objectively measured Touchscreen Mobile Device (TSMD) use in free-living conditions. Data on TSMD use, gross body posture (lying, sitting, standing, stepping), and location of use (workplace, home, other) were collected over seven consecutive days from 54 adults (mean ± SD, 38 ± 10 years). The average duration of TSMD use was 152 ± 91 min/day, with a TSMD engagement of 51 ± 35 times/day. Participants under 30 years spent significantly more time on their TSMD, averaging 230 ± 108 min/day. By location, 54 ± 17% of use occurred at home and 24 ± 15% at work. The most common posture adopted during any TSMD use was sitting (77 ± 5 2 min/day), with participants also spending considerable time lying down in the home environment (39 ± 49 min/day). These findings provide valuable insights into how adults are using TSMDs, including the postures and locations of use. Further research is needed on the health and wellbeing implications of these usage patterns. Practitioner summary: This study explored Touchscreen Mobile Device (TSMD) use in free-living conditions among 54 adults (mean ± standard deviation, 38 ± 10 years). Participants under 30 years spent significantly more time on their devices. More than half of the time spent using TSMD occurred at home while sitting and lying down.Abbreviations: TSMD: touchscreen mobile device; SD: standard deviation; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; HDR: higher degree by research; SEES: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences; UK: The United Kingdom; USA: United States of America; SAS: statistical analysis system; ANOVA: analysis of variance; SPSS: statistical package for the social sciences; h: hour; min/d: minutes per day; d: day; ICC: intraclass correlation; CI: confidence interval; min: minute; GPS: global positioning systemsHighlightsTouchscreen mobile device use and gross body posture were quantified objectively.The most common postures for touchscreen mobile device use were lying and sitting.Touchscreen mobile devices were used around twice as much at home than at work.Use at home, with a predominance of the lying posture, needs further investigation.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes among Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving One or Two Grams of Ceftriaxone Daily.

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients may experience ceftriaxone underexposure, but clinical outcomes data are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of ceftriaxone dosing on clinical outcomes among ICU patients without central nervous system (CNS) infection. A retrospective study of ICU patients receiving intravenous, empirical ceftriaxone for non-CNS infections was conducted. Patients ≥18 years of age who received ≤2 g of ceftriaxone daily for ≥72 h were included and categorized as receiving ceftriaxone 1 g or 2 g daily. The primary, composite outcome was treatment failure, defined as inpatient mortality and/or antibiotic escalation due to clinical worsening. Propensity score matching was performed based on the probability of receiving 2 g of ceftriaxone daily. Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between ceftriaxone dose and treatment failure in a propensity-matched cohort. A total of 212 patients were included in the propensity-matched cohort. The most common diagnoses (83.0%) were pneumonia and urinary tract infection. Treatment failure occurred in 17.0% and 5.7% of patients receiving 1 g and 2 g daily, respectively (P = 0.0156). Overall inpatient mortality was 8.5%. Ceftriaxone 2 g dosing was associated with a reduced likelihood of treatment failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.190; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.059 to 0.607). Other independent predictors of treatment failure included sequential organ failure assessment score (aOR = 1.440; 95% CI = 1.254 to 1.653) and creatinine clearance at 72 h from ceftriaxone initiation (aOR = 0.980; 95% CI = 0.971 to 0.999). Therefore, ceftriaxone at 2 g daily, when used as appropriate antimicrobial coverage, may be appropriate for ICU patients with lower mortality risk.