Comparison of three respirator user training methods.
Comparison of three respirator user training methods.
复制标题
三种呼吸器使用者培训方法的比较。
DOI：
10.1097/jom.0000000000000010
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Alongi,Gabriela
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harber,Philip;Boumis,RobertJ;Su,Jing;Barrett,Sarah;Alongi,Gabriela
目的：这项研究涉及的方法，培训呼吸器使用者，特别是当职业卫生专业人员不能立即提供。方法：一项随机试验比较了三种培训方法印刷的小册子，视频和基于计算机的培训，两种呼吸器类型（过滤面罩和双墨盒半面罩）。定量拟合测试（PortaCount）测量了培训的有效性。该研究包括226 subjects.Results：对于这两种呼吸器类型，视频是显着优于无论是打印或基于计算机的培训方法上级。结论是一致的，无论是由平均拟合系数（方差分析），对数转换拟合系数，或在最低的四分位数的用户数量实现fit.Conclusions：视频培训正确使用呼吸器可以有效的直接培训时，从职业卫生专业人员不可用。这些方法特别适用于“快速推广”的情况，如自然灾害、流行病或生物恐怖主义问题。
Objective:This study addresses methods for training respirator users, particularly when occupational health professionals are not immediately available.Methods:A randomized trial compared three training methods—printed brochure, video, and computer-based training—for two respirator types (filtering facepiece and a dual-cartridge half facemask). Quantitative fit testing (PortaCount) measured the effectiveness of training. The study included 226 subjects.Results:For both respirator types, video was significantly superior to either print or computer-based training methods. Conclusions were consistent, whether determined by average fit factor (analysis of variance), log-transformed fit factors, or the number of users in the lowest quartile of achieved fit.Conclusions:Video training for proper respirator use can be effective when direct training from an occupational health professional is unavailable. These methods are particularly relevant to “rapid rollout” situations, such as natural disasters, epidemics, or bioterrorism concerns.