Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cavalcante, Walleska Souza
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Almeida, Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos, Lima, Anyele Albuquerque, Nunes, Izabelly Carollynny Maciel, Nagliate, Patrícia de Carvalho, Sarmento, Patrícia de Albuquerque
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Research, Society and Development
Texto Completo: https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/11628
Resumo: Objective: To analyze governmental recommendations and scientific evidence regarding the use of respiratory protectors by health professionals in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method: Scoping Review, following the protocol proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), Version 2020. The PCC (Population, Concept and Context) strategy was used to formulate the following guiding question: “What are the recommendations regarding the use of masks? Respiratory protection respirators by health professionals facing the risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2? ”. Searches were carried out in six international databases and in gray literature and on government websites in different countries, from July to August 2020. Results: 20 studies published in 2020 were included. On the methodology of the studies, 1 (5%) study descriptive, 1 (5%) narrative review, 2 (10%) systematic review with meta-analysis, 2 systematic reviews (10%), 8 (40%) literature review and 6 (30%) technical report. Conclusion: There are differences regarding: type of respiratory protection in routine care, when there is no generation of aerosols, with studies that indicate the use of surgical masks and others that recommend the use of a particulate respirator; there is an indication of different particulate respirators of varying degrees of protection, for the same scenario of clinical exposure, and there is conflict regarding the scenario of greater exposure for health professionals, in disagreement of which procedures generate aerosols.
id UNIFEI_ffec09b73df56eed0f706334f7807c37
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/11628
network_acronym_str UNIFEI
network_name_str Research, Society and Development
repository_id_str
spelling Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping reviewRecomendaciones con respecto al uso de máscaras/ respiradores protectores por parte de profesionales de la salud en riesgo de exposición al sars-cov-2: scoping reviewRecomendações quanto ao uso de máscaras/ respiradores de proteção por profissionais de saúde em risco de exposição ao sars-cov-2: scoping reviewMascarilla médicaRespirador N95Mascarilla quirúrgicaEquipo de protección personalProfesional de la salud.Máscara médicaRespirador N95Máscara cirúrgicaEquipamento de proteção individualProfissional de saúde.Mask medicalN95 respiratorSurgical maskPersonal protective equipmentHealth professional.Objective: To analyze governmental recommendations and scientific evidence regarding the use of respiratory protectors by health professionals in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method: Scoping Review, following the protocol proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), Version 2020. The PCC (Population, Concept and Context) strategy was used to formulate the following guiding question: “What are the recommendations regarding the use of masks? Respiratory protection respirators by health professionals facing the risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2? ”. Searches were carried out in six international databases and in gray literature and on government websites in different countries, from July to August 2020. Results: 20 studies published in 2020 were included. On the methodology of the studies, 1 (5%) study descriptive, 1 (5%) narrative review, 2 (10%) systematic review with meta-analysis, 2 systematic reviews (10%), 8 (40%) literature review and 6 (30%) technical report. Conclusion: There are differences regarding: type of respiratory protection in routine care, when there is no generation of aerosols, with studies that indicate the use of surgical masks and others that recommend the use of a particulate respirator; there is an indication of different particulate respirators of varying degrees of protection, for the same scenario of clinical exposure, and there is conflict regarding the scenario of greater exposure for health professionals, in disagreement of which procedures generate aerosols.Objetivo: Analizar las recomendaciones gubernamentales y la evidencia científica sobre el uso de protectores respiratorios por parte de profesionales de la salud en el contexto de la pandemia SARS-CoV-2. Método: Scoping Review, siguiendo el protocolo propuesto por el Instituto Joanna Briggs (JBI), Versión 2020. Se utilizó la estrategia PCC (Population, Concept and Context) para formular la siguiente pregunta orientadora: “¿Cuáles son las recomendaciones sobre el uso de mascarillas? / respiradores de protección respiratoria por profesionales de la salud que enfrentan el riesgo de contaminación por SARS-CoV-2? ”. Se realizaron búsquedas en seis bases de datos internacionales y en literatura gris y en sitios web gubernamentales de diferentes países, de julio a agosto de 2020. Resultados: Se incluyeron 20 estudios publicados en 2020. Sobre la metodología de los estudios, 1 (5%) estudio descriptiva, 1 (5%) revisión narrativa, 2 (10%) revisión sistemática con metaanálisis, 2 revisiones sistemáticas (10%), 8 (40%) revisión de literatura y 6 (30%) informe técnico. Conclusión: Existen diferencias en cuanto a: tipo de protección respiratoria en la atención de rutina, cuando no hay generación de aerosoles, con estudios que indican el uso de mascarillas quirúrgicas y otros que recomiendan el uso de un respirador de partículas; existe una indicación de diferentes respiradores de partículas de diversos grados de protección, para un mismo escenario de exposición clínica, y existe conflicto en cuanto al escenario de mayor exposición para los profesionales de la salud, en desacuerdo sobre qué procedimientos generan aerosoles.Objetivo: Analisar as recomendações governamentais e as evidências científicas quanto ao uso de protetores respiratórios por profissionais de saúde no contexto da pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Método: Scoping Review, seguido o protocolo proposto pelo Instituto Joanna Briggs (JBI), Versão 2020. Foi utilizada a estratégia PCC (População, Conceito e Contexto), para a formulação da seguinte pergunta norteadora: “Quais as recomendações quanto ao uso de máscaras/respiradores de proteção respiratória por profissionais de saúde frente ao risco de contaminação pelo SARS-CoV-2?”. Foram realizadas buscas em seis bases de dados internacionais e na literatura cinzenta e em sites governamentais de diferentes países, de julho a agosto de 2020. Resultados: foram incluídos 20 estudos publicados em 2020. Sobre a metodologia dos estudos, 1 (5%) estudo descritivo, 1 (5%) revisão narrativa, 2 (10%) revisão sistemática com meta-análise, 2 revisões sistemáticas (10%), 8 (40%) revisão de literatura e 6 (30%) relatório técnico. Conclusão:Há divergências quanto ao: tipo de proteção respiratória em cuidados de rotina, quando não há geração de aerossóis, com estudos que indicam a utilização de máscaras cirúrgicas e outros que recomendam a utilização de um respirador particulado; há indicação de diferentes respiradores particulados de diversos graus de proteção, para o mesmo cenário de exposição clínica, e existe conflito quanto ao cenário de maior exposição para os profissionais de saúde, na discordância de quais procedimentos geram aerossóis.Research, Society and Development2021-01-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/1162810.33448/rsd-v10i1.11628Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 1; e16710111628Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 1; e16710111628Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 1; e167101116282525-3409reponame:Research, Society and Developmentinstname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)instacron:UNIFEIporhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/11628/10366Copyright (c) 2021 Walleska Souza Cavalcante; Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos Almeida; Anyele Albuquerque Lima; Izabelly Carollynny Maciel Nunes; Patrícia de Carvalho Nagliate; Patrícia de Albuquerque Sarmentohttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCavalcante, Walleska Souza Almeida, Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos Lima, Anyele Albuquerque Nunes, Izabelly Carollynny Maciel Nagliate, Patrícia de Carvalho Sarmento, Patrícia de Albuquerque 2021-02-20T21:19:23Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/11628Revistahttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/indexPUBhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/oairsd.articles@gmail.com2525-34092525-3409opendoar:2024-01-17T09:33:24.043115Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
Recomendaciones con respecto al uso de máscaras/ respiradores protectores por parte de profesionales de la salud en riesgo de exposición al sars-cov-2: scoping review
Recomendações quanto ao uso de máscaras/ respiradores de proteção por profissionais de saúde em risco de exposição ao sars-cov-2: scoping review
title Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
spellingShingle Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
Cavalcante, Walleska Souza
Mascarilla médica
Respirador N95
Mascarilla quirúrgica
Equipo de protección personal
Profesional de la salud.
Máscara médica
Respirador N95
Máscara cirúrgica
Equipamento de proteção individual
Profissional de saúde.
Mask medical
N95 respirator
Surgical mask
Personal protective equipment
Health professional.
title_short Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
title_full Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
title_fullStr Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
title_sort Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
author Cavalcante, Walleska Souza
author_facet Cavalcante, Walleska Souza
Almeida, Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos
Lima, Anyele Albuquerque
Nunes, Izabelly Carollynny Maciel
Nagliate, Patrícia de Carvalho
Sarmento, Patrícia de Albuquerque
author_role author
author2 Almeida, Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos
Lima, Anyele Albuquerque
Nunes, Izabelly Carollynny Maciel
Nagliate, Patrícia de Carvalho
Sarmento, Patrícia de Albuquerque
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cavalcante, Walleska Souza
Almeida, Alda Graciele Claudio dos Santos
Lima, Anyele Albuquerque
Nunes, Izabelly Carollynny Maciel
Nagliate, Patrícia de Carvalho
Sarmento, Patrícia de Albuquerque
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Mascarilla médica
Respirador N95
Mascarilla quirúrgica
Equipo de protección personal
Profesional de la salud.
Máscara médica
Respirador N95
Máscara cirúrgica
Equipamento de proteção individual
Profissional de saúde.
Mask medical
N95 respirator
Surgical mask
Personal protective equipment
Health professional.
topic Mascarilla médica
Respirador N95
Mascarilla quirúrgica
Equipo de protección personal
Profesional de la salud.
Máscara médica
Respirador N95
Máscara cirúrgica
Equipamento de proteção individual
Profissional de saúde.
Mask medical
N95 respirator
Surgical mask
Personal protective equipment
Health professional.
description Objective: To analyze governmental recommendations and scientific evidence regarding the use of respiratory protectors by health professionals in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method: Scoping Review, following the protocol proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), Version 2020. The PCC (Population, Concept and Context) strategy was used to formulate the following guiding question: “What are the recommendations regarding the use of masks? Respiratory protection respirators by health professionals facing the risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2? ”. Searches were carried out in six international databases and in gray literature and on government websites in different countries, from July to August 2020. Results: 20 studies published in 2020 were included. On the methodology of the studies, 1 (5%) study descriptive, 1 (5%) narrative review, 2 (10%) systematic review with meta-analysis, 2 systematic reviews (10%), 8 (40%) literature review and 6 (30%) technical report. Conclusion: There are differences regarding: type of respiratory protection in routine care, when there is no generation of aerosols, with studies that indicate the use of surgical masks and others that recommend the use of a particulate respirator; there is an indication of different particulate respirators of varying degrees of protection, for the same scenario of clinical exposure, and there is conflict regarding the scenario of greater exposure for health professionals, in disagreement of which procedures generate aerosols.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-01-06
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/11628
10.33448/rsd-v10i1.11628
url https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/11628
identifier_str_mv 10.33448/rsd-v10i1.11628
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/11628/10366
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 1; e16710111628
Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 1; e16710111628
Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 1; e16710111628
2525-3409
reponame:Research, Society and Development
instname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
instacron:UNIFEI
instname_str Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
instacron_str UNIFEI
institution UNIFEI
reponame_str Research, Society and Development
collection Research, Society and Development
repository.name.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv rsd.articles@gmail.com
_version_ 1797052805124456448