ArticleSAGE open nursing
Utilization of Personal Protective Equipment and Its Determinants Among Health Care Professionals in Public Hospitals in Resource-Limited Settings.
Article in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Personal Protective Equipment protects healthcare workers from harmful exposures, reducing the risk of illness and injury. However, adherence to its proper use is often low, increasing infection risks and lowering care quality. Consistent use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential for safeguarding both healthcare workers and patients. Objective: To assess utilization of personal protective equipment and its determinants among health care professionals in public hospitals in resource-limited settings, 2025. Methods: A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 422 health professionals selected by simple random sampling from four public hospitals. Data were collected using a pretested self-administered questionnaire. After data cleaning and entry into EpiData 3.1, analysis was performed using SPSS version 27. Descriptive statistics were presented using tables and figures. Binary and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with PPE utilization, with statistical significance declared at p < .05. Result: A total of 416 respondents participated in the study, yielding a response rate of 98.6%, and the magnitude of personal protective equipment utilization was 51.7%, 95% CI [46.4%, 55.8%]. Higher PPE utilization was significantly associated with monthly income, working hours, knowledge, and attitude toward PPE. Participants earning more than 10,000 ETB (AOR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.31, 4.10), those working 40 hours or less per week (AOR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.96), respondents with good knowledge (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.30, 2.72), and those with a positive attitude (AOR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.13, 2.58) had higher odds of utilizing PPE at a P-value < .05. Conclusion: Only about half of the health professionals regularly used personal protective equipment, indicating a considerable gap in adherence to safety practices. Higher income, reasonable working hours, good knowledge, and a positive attitude were key factors that enhanced utilization. Therefore, healthcare institutions and stakeholders should strengthen continuous training, ensure adequate availability of PPE, and promote supportive working conditions to encourage consistent utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.