Recommendations regarding the use of protective masks/ respirators by health professionals at risk of exposure to sars-cov-2: scoping review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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 |