Quantitative Respirator Fit, Face Sizes, and Determinants of Fit in South African Diagnostic Laboratory Respirator Users
Quantitative Respirator Fit, Face Sizes, and Determinants of Fit in South African Diagnostic Laboratory Respirator Users
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/annweh/wxx077
复制
发表时间：
2017-11-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Rees, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Manganyi, Jeanneth;Wilson, Kerry S.;Rees, David
目标：呼吸器在医疗保健环境中广泛使用，但关于适合性及其决定因素的信息很少，特别是在资源有限的环境中。该研究的目的是描述南非诊断实验室呼吸器使用者在佩戴当前选择的呼吸器（通常不考虑面部尺寸）时具有足够定量呼吸器适合性的比例，并确定适合性测试通过和失败的决定因素。 方法：这是一项有 562 名参与者参与的横断面研究。使用 PortaCount 适合性测试机进行定量呼吸器适合性测试。使用卡尺和卷尺测量四个面部尺寸。 STATA 14 用于执行描述性统计和推论统计。使用按性别分层的多元逻辑回归探讨了自变量（包括面部尺寸、种族、吸烟、呼吸器品牌和尺寸以及年龄组）的影响。结果：91% 的供应呼吸器为中型。百分之七十八的呼吸器使用者未通过适合性测试，因此可能无法受到当前提供的呼吸器的保护。多元逻辑回归分析显示，面部长度（比值比 [OR] = 1.04，95% 置信区间 [CI] = 1.00-1.09）、鼻根宽度（毫米）（OR = 1.16，95% CI = 1.06-1.28）和呼吸器形状（OR = 0.56，95% CI = 0.39-0.78）是整体的显着预测因子。适合所有受试者和仅女性，但这些因素只能解释一小部分适合性测试结果。结论：很大一部分诊断实验室员工使用了不合适的呼吸器。这会造成一种保护的假象。因此，呼吸器的适合性测试非常重要且值得推荐。评估的决定因素仅描述了拟合变异性的一小部分；模型中缺少重要的决定因素。
Objectives: Respirators are widely used in health care settings but there is scant information on adequacy of fit and its determinants, particularly in resource-constrained settings. The aim of the study is to describe the proportion of South African diagnostic laboratory respirator users with adequate quantitative respirator fit while wearing their currently selected respirators which were generally supplied without regard to face size, and to identify determinants of fit test pass and fail.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study with 562 participants. Quantitative respirator fit testing was conducted using a PortaCount fit testing machine. Four facial dimensions were taken using callipers and a tape measure. STATA 14 was used to perform descriptive and inferential statistics. The effect of the independent variables including face dimensions, race, smoking, respirator make and size, and age group was explored using multiple logistic regression stratified by sex.Results: Ninety one percent of the respirators supplied were medium-sized. Seventy eight percent of respirator users failed fit testing and were thus probably not protected by their currently supplied respirator. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that face length in mm (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.09), nasal root breadth in mm (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06-1.28), and respirator shape (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.39-0.78) were significant predictors of overall fit for all subjects and for women alone, but these factors explained only a small percentage of fit test outcomes.Conclusion: A large proportion of diagnostic laboratory employees were using poorly fitting respirators. This creates a false impression of protection. Fit testing of respirators is therefore important and recommended. The determinants evaluated described only a small portion of the variability in fit; important determinants were absent from the models.