4.5 Article

The Medical Gloves Assessment Tool (MGAT): Developing and validating a quantitative tool for assessing the safety and ergonomic features related to medical gloves

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 591-601

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13188

关键词

assessment tool; ergonomics; medical glove; psychometric properties; safety

资金

  1. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran [20843]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a tool with 26 items in six domains, including tactile sensation, dexterity, grip strength, fitting, reliability and hand hygiene. The tool demonstrated good validity and reliability, providing a comprehensive assessment of the ergonomic and safety status of medical gloves.
Background Medical gloves play a very important role in protecting health care workers and patients. It is very important to pay attention to the safety and ergonomic properties of medical gloves in their protective function. Aim To develop a quantitative tool for evaluating the safety and ergonomic properties of the medical gloves. Methods Five hospitals with a total of 185 health care workers participated in the research. The domains and items of the tool were developed based on an expert's panel, interviews with health care workers and a literature review. Face, content and construct validity was used for validation. Reliability was also evaluated using internal consistency. Results The final tool included 26 items in six domains, including tactile sensation, dexterity, grip strength, fitting, reliability and hand hygiene. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.82 for the total scale. Conclusion The final tool had good validity and reliability. The findings of this study led to the development of a comprehensive standard tool that can be used to assess the ergonomic and safety status of medical gloves. Implications for Nursing Management With this tool, problems related to medical gloves can be identified among nurses, and the necessary interventions can be predicted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据