Next Article in Journal
Feasibility of Biochar Derived from Sewage Sludge to Promote Sustainable Agriculture and Mitigate GHG Emissions—A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Correction: Albendín-García et al. Explanatory Models of Burnout Diagnosis Based on Personality Factors in Primary Care Nurses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9170
Previous Article in Journal
“Forced Transformation” or “Regulation Capture”—Research on the Interactive Mechanism between Environmental Regulation and Green Transformation of Dairy Farming Subject Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
Understanding Work Addiction in Adult Children: The Effect of Addicted Parents and Work Motivation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph191912981
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training on Personal Protective Equipment Use in Health Science Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial

by
Blanca Rueda-Medina
1,2,
María Encarnación Aguilar-Ferrándiz
2,3,
Ana Alejandra Esteban-Burgos
1,2,
Rosa María Tapia Haro
2,3,
Antonio Casas-Barragán
2,3,
Almudena Velando-Soriano
4,
Rocío Gil-Gutiérrez
1,2,* and
María Correa-Rodríguez
1,2
1
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain
2
Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs. GRANADA, 18012 Granada, Spain
3
Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, 18016 Granada, Spain
4
Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital, Andalusian Health Service, 18014 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12981; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912981
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 5 October 2022 / Accepted: 6 October 2022 / Published: 10 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthy Lifestyle: Health Promotion and Prevention)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: In the COVID-19 era, there was a call for the transformation of higher education. Universities had to combine non-face-to-face teaching with traditional procedures. This study analyzed the effectiveness and perceived satisfaction in a cohort of health sciences students of non-face-to-face teaching with passive training versus face-to-face teaching with active training in the proper donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in a clinical simulation scenario. Methods: A total of 142 participants were randomized into two groups: (a) non-face-to-face teaching with passive training; (b) face-to-face teaching with active training. The proper protocol for donning and doffing PPE was assessed. Students evaluated their skills before and after training and satisfaction with training received. Results: Significant differences were observed for the statements “I felt more confident in donning after receiving this training” (p = 0.029) and “I felt more confident in doffing after receiving this training” (p = 0.042) in the face-to-face teaching with active training group compared to the non-face-to-face teaching with passive training group, whose number of tasks violated was significantly higher (p = 0.020). Satisfaction was significantly higher in the face-to-face and active training group (p = 0.004). Conclusions: Face-to-face teaching with active training improves effectiveness and satisfaction more than non-face-to-face teaching with passive training for acquiring skills in donning and doffing PPE properly.

1. Introduction

In higher education, research has highlighted the importance of students taking an active role in the learning process rather than being passive recipients of information from teachers [1]. Methods that try to approximate theoretical knowledge with what happens in professional practice has been arise [2]. In particular, the simulation consists of representation of real situations that the students will experience in their future work performance [2,3]. Thus, in simulation scenarios, students must put into practice a series of skills, knowledge and attitudes require for their professional competence [4].
Clinical simulation can be considered a teaching–learning strategy that is becoming increasingly important in the acquisition of skills in health students, by giving students the opportunity to practice their clinical skills and decision making without putting at risk patient’s lives [5,6,7]. Clinical simulation is not based only on the handling of simulation mannequins but on a variety of activities that include role-play or virtual environments [8]. It is valued for its ability to reproduce some of the conditions of clinical practice and enable learners to practice in a safe environment [9].
In the era of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), there was a call for the transformation of higher education. Universities had to combine non-face-to-face teachings in its degrees in addition to its traditional procedures with the new requirements of non-face-to-face teaching [10]. Currently, although the COVID-19 pandemic is over, non-face-to-face lessons may still need to be conducted due to similar circumstances. Thus, several face-to-face teaching and learning methods should also be available to be implemented non-face-to-face [11]. In this context, it is necessary to examine the effects of implementing non-face-to-face teaching methods in health science students.
On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of training health sciences students regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). As future healthcare workers, in high-risk environments, it is obliged to wear personal protective equipment [12], since accurate personal protective equipment use is one of the key practices of infection control [13]. Simulation training in the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment has been proposed as an effective methodology to promote the practice of proper technique [14]. However, the effectiveness of online simulation training in personal protective equipment donning and doffing has not been widely investigated.
In this context, the aim of this study was (i) to assess and compare the effectiveness of non-face-to-face teaching with passive training versus face-to-face teaching with active training in the proper donning and doffing of PPE in a clinical simulation scenario based on a COVID-19 patient, and (ii) to analyze the perceived satisfaction in a cohort of health sciences students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 142 health science students (36.6% males and 63.4% females) from 1st (28.2%), 2nd (21.8%) and 3rd (50.0%) academic year taken from the Nursing (32.4%) and Physiotherapy (67.6%) Degrees of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Granada and Melilla (University of Granada, Spain). The mean age of the study cohort was 22.54 ± 6.39 years. Students with no prior exposure to simulation were encouraged to become involved in this study. Participants provided written informed consent after receiving information about the purpose of the study. It was explained to the students that participation was voluntary. Therefore, those who chose not to participate would not be academically disadvantaged. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Granada.

2.2. Study Protocol

Prior to the simulation session, a presentation providing the theoretical background to the scenario was emailed to all students who expressed a desire to participate in the study. Students were randomized using the Oxford Minimization and Randomization computer-supported centralized method OxMar [15] into each of the following groups: (a) non-face-to-face teaching with passive training; and (b) face-to-face teaching with active training. In one group, students received face-to-face teaching regarding PPE, and after that, they had to manage the PPE with active training (use of PPE including cap, isolation gown, gloves, goggles and N95 mask). In this group, the training was carried out by the same teacher with the aim of minimizing intra-group differences. The length of each training was 60 min. In the other group, students received non-face-to-face teaching regarding PPE use, and they received a passive training that include watching some videos and protocols regarding the procedure for donning and doffing PPE. In both teaching and training modalities, the protocols and resources used were based on those developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [16] and the World Health Organization (WHO) 2020 [17].
After the different training modalities, a simulation scenario was designed to evaluate the procedure for donning and doffing PPE. Both groups carried out the same clinical simulation scenario based on the management of a COVID -19 patient. A maximum of 12 participants were admitted in a session. The duration of each simulation with its subsequent debriefing was 90 min (a 15-min simulation and a 75-min debriefing session). The study protocol is shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Study Variables

Students completed a sociodemographic questionnaire including information regarding age, gender, degree, academic year and campus (Granada or Melilla). During the simulation scenario, the proper protocol for donning and doffing PPE was assessed by the instructor using a checklist. Not performing the task or performing it incorrectly was considered an error. Moreover, the total number of donning and doffing tasks violated was calculated. The time to completion for each procedure was also measured.
After the simulation scenario, students completed a self-assessment questionnaire to evaluate their skills in donning and doffing PPE before and after the training received. This questionnaire was previously used by Salway et al. (2020) and consists of a Likert-type scale with values from 1 to 5 (totally disagree and totally agree, respectively). Finally, the perceived satisfaction of the students with the training modalities received was determined using a 10 cm visual analogue scale with scores from 0 (“not satisfied”) to 10 (“very satisfied”). Data were collected between November 2021 and March 2022 without interfering with the participants’ academic degree.
The data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Data were expressed as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and as mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables. To compare two groups (face-to-face teaching with active training vs. non-face-to-face teaching with passive training), we used Student’s t-test for continuous data and χ2 for categorical data. All analyses were carried out by a blinded researcher. Probabilities exceeding 95% (alpha p values < 0.05) were used as the threshold cut-off for statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Description

General characteristics of the participants according to the training modalities are shown in Table 1. A total of 142 students (32.4% of the Nursing Degree and 67.6% of the Physiotherapy Degree) participated in the study. Of these, 63.4% of the students were female, and the mean age of the cohort was 22.54 years. No significant differences were found in gender, age, degree, academic year or campus according to the training modalities.

3.2. Self-Assessment of the Management of PPE in the Total Study Population According to Training Modalities

3.2.1. Considering the Response Options as Categorical Variables

The self-assessment of the management of PPE in the total study population and according to the training modalities is shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Considering the response options as categorical variables, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups (Table 2). Note that before receiving the training, around 40% of students stated that they were familiar with donning and doffing PPE, and 30% of the students considered that they did not have this skill. After receiving the training, almost 100% of the students reported agreeing or strongly agreeing that they were confident donning and doffing the PPE. In addition, more than 95% of the students reported that that the training that they received was useful to manage the clinical simulation scenario.

3.2.2. Considering Means of the Response Options

The self-assessment of the management of PPE in the total study population and according to the training modalities, considering means of the response options, is presented in Table 3. Significant differences were observed for the statements “I felt more confident in donning after receiving this training” (4.85 (0.39) vs. 4.83 (0.37): p = 0.029), and “I felt more confident in doffing after receiving this training” (4.83 (0.37) vs. 4.64 (0.68): p = 0.042) in the face-to-face teaching with active training group compared to the non-face-to-face teaching with passive training group.

3.3. Tasks Violated and Time Needed to Accomplish the PPPE Protocol

Table 4 shows the number of donning and doffing tasks violated in the total sample and according to the training received. The task that was completed in a higher percentage was “Put on the isolation gown and tie the straps”, in which an error rate of 9.9% was identified. In contrast, the task that was completed in the lowest percentage was “Put on the mask correctly”, in which an error rate of 22.8% was found. Regarding doffing tasks, it was identified that the 30.3% of students did not complete the task “Take off the gown (untie straps gently, without abrupt movements, from the shoulders down and away from the body”). There were significant differences between the face-to-face teaching with active training group vs. the non-face-to-face teaching with passive training group for the task “Take off the gown” in the doffing procedure (37.2% vs. 62.8% p = 0.034). For the rest of the tasks, no statistically significant differences were observed.
Table 5 shows the time needed to accomplish the EPI protocol and the total number of tasks violated between both training modalities. Regarding time to completion, no significant differences were observed between both groups. Interestingly, the total number of tasks violated was significantly higher in the non-face-to-face teaching with passive training groups vs. the face-to-face teaching with active training group (2.23 (1.99) vs. 1.53 (1.78); p = 0.029).

3.4. Perceived Satisfaction

With regard to perceived satisfaction, we found a high level of satisfaction in the total population (9.14 (1.32)). However, we identified that the level of satisfaction was significantly higher in the face-to-face teaching with active training group vs. the non-face-to-face teaching with passive training group (9.46 (0.78) versus 8.81 (1.66); p = 0.004).

4. Discussion

In this study, we aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of non-face-to-face teaching with passive training versus face-to-face teaching with active training in the proper donning and doffing of PPE in a clinical simulation scenario based on a COVID-19 patient, and to analyze the perceived satisfaction in a cohort of health sciences students. We demonstrated that the total number of tasks violated in the face-to-face teaching with active training group was significantly lower, supporting the greater effectiveness of this methodology to acquire skills in donning and doffing PPE properly. The level of perceived satisfaction was also significantly higher in this group.
The global trend in higher education to respond to the pandemic era with e-learning options has resulted in the rapid transition from face-to-face and active training to non-face-to-face and passive training [18]. Therefore, it is of special interest to evaluate the effects of implementing non-face-to-face teaching methods in health sciences students. Similar to our findings, previous studies also found that the level of satisfaction was higher in face-to-face vs. non-face-to-face teaching. Results from prior research carried out in the post COVID-19 era on healthcare degrees including nursing, physiotherapy, medicine or dentistry have shown the positive impact on face-to-face training in terms of social performance, knowledge integration, self-motivation, security and satisfaction [19,20,21,22,23]. These studies have been conducted in diverse settings that require both a strong practical component, such as suturing, anatomy or dissection, and a strong social interaction component, such as learning specific terminology for health professionals. This is one of the biggest challenges in non-face-to-face education: not all activities work well in online environments [24], which has to be taken into consideration when designing these activities. Possible factors that may influence greater student satisfaction using active vs. passive methods may be due to the possibility of making decisions and integrating theory with practice, which provides a greater perception of learning, besides promoting social interaction and a beneficial environment during the session and its following debriefing [25]. Much of the success of the success of face-to-face learning approaches is due to instructor-dependent factors, which non-face-to-face interventions cannot replace. Factors as simple as their level of enthusiasm, as well as its external manifestation, has shown to have a direct impact on students’ behavior [26], and they manage to better capture students’ attention [27]. Even details such as the instructor’s voice during the lesson have been demonstrated to influence the learning processing process [28], finding significant differences in retention capacity and time estimates [29].
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the relevance of training future health professionals regarding the proper use of PPE in order to stop the infection-spreading process [30,31]. In addition to reducing the risk of infection spread, proper handling of PPEs promotes the physical and mental well-being of healthcare workers. Hoedls et al. [32] showed that in a cohort of nursing professionals, the higher the stress levels, the longer they wore their masks, which must be taken into account both to establish mandatory break periods of the equipment use and to organize adequate training that guarantees an adequate adjustment of the devices with the objective of reducing possible discomfort and guaranteeing security.
In the context of COVID-19, previous experience in handling PPEs in previous sanitary emergencies such as Ebola, SARS or any other respiratory or infectious conditions can be also supportive. Evidence has shown that active training (face-to-face training) in PPE use decreases non-compliance with donning and doffing guidance more than passive training modalities (lectures, videos, without practice) [33,34]. The use of reality-based education methods, such as clinical simulation, has been shown to help significantly reduce the contamination associated with PPEs’ management [13]. However, while some authors have reported fewer errors using methodologies with active versus passive formations [34], others have not found significant differences in compliance with the protocol [35,36], or even the opposite, finding significant differences in favor of the use of online methodologies (e.g., mobile video) instead of conventional learning strategies in health professionals managing PPEs [31], which may be due to the immediacy (any moment, any time) offered by these modern approaches in a profession marked by constantly changing schedules and routines determined by patient conditions. It is true that both modalities have common features, which can be, among others, the possibility of downloading the content and assignments, as if students were taking notes in a face-to-face lesson, or the possibility of starting a debate or reflection process during lessons remotely thanks to videoconference platforms. However, as some studies have shown, in the case of health science students, the proper students, although accepting online modalities as an alternative in the context of the health emergency caused by the COVID-19 disease [11], strongly believe that face-to-face education is irreplaceable [37].
In our study, we observed that the total number of tasks violated was higher in the non-face-to-face teaching with passive training group. Currat et al. [38] also found that adding to a passive training (a gamified e-learning module) an active intervention (face-to-face intervention using Peyton’s four-step approach) in a cohort of 65 paramedic students produced a higher proportion of doffing sequences properly performed compared to the passive intervention group (33.3%, 95% CI 18.0 to 51.8 versus 9.7%, 95% CI 2.0 to 25.8; p = 0.03). In addition, the self-assessment of the management of PPE reported by the students in our study has revealed that students felt more confident in donning and doffing after receiving face-to-face teaching with active training. In line with these results, Díaz-Guío et al. [39], conducted a study in 106 medicine students with the objective of comparing the use of an active versus a passive methodology when managing COVID-19 patients and PPE equipment and found that participants who received passive methodology had lower levels of satisfaction. Thus, our results taken together with data from previous reports support that face-to-face teaching with active training before a clinical simulation scenario might ensure the acquisition of skills for the proper PPE use.
In this study, the task that was completed in a higher percentage by the students was “Put on the isolation gown and tie the straps”, whereas the tasks that were completed in the lowest percentage were “Put on the mask correctly” and “Take off the gown (untie straps gently, without abrupt movements, from the shoulders down and away from the body”)”. Compliance with guidelines and protocols when donning and doffing PPEs has been poor through time [33]. When it comes to the use of respiratory protection (e.g., face masks), compliance is around 50% in many cases [40]. Other studies also have reported a higher number of errors in PPE doffing tasks [34,41,42,43,44]. Based on the results of a Cochrane Database Systematic Review, face-to-face training could reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance protocols more than when only videos or folders are provided to trainees (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) [33]. These findings should be a cause for concern for teachers and students, since the risk of contamination when removing PPE is greater than when putting it on [42]. In fact, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) guidelines themselves have particular emphasis on proper training for employees on PPE removal [30]. Future training should emphasize that external surfaces when removing PPE are contaminated and focus especially on the acquisition of these skills.
This study has some limitations that should be highlighted. The health science students enrolled in this study were trained to properly use the PPE and therefore, our findings might not be generalized to other clinical scenarios. In addition, since the sample was entirely constituted by health science students, the effects reported in this trial might not be generalizable to other domains and degrees. Although participants did not receive the audiovisual material prior to the intervention, it is possible that some of them accessed and watched the same or similar videos or protocols available online, and this variable was not monitored and controlled for. Finally, we did not assess the difference in the retention rate of skills acquired after training over time between groups, which would be interesting to include in future studies. In contrast, reporting and selection biases were minimized, as this was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in which data collection was not based on participants’ memory or prior information, and aleatory group allocation avoided distorting results based on participants’ personal characteristics. It also should be highlighted that the same experienced teacher completed all the teaching sessions in order to reduce the confounding effect derived from multiple teachers. Moreover, the low risk of detection bias should be noted, as the evaluators of the simulations were blinded to the study groups.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our results support that face-to-face teaching with active training is more effective than non-face-to-face teaching with passive training in order to acquire skills in the donning and doffing of PPE properly in health science students. The level of perceived satisfaction by the students was also significantly higher in this group. Educators can use this information to promote face-to-face teaching with active training before clinical simulation scenarios that require the use of PPE, since it appears to improve effectiveness and satisfaction. Further studies in a larger study cohort are required to validate our findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and design: M.C.-R. Experiments performance: All authors. Analyzed and interpreted the data: M.C.-R. and B.R.-M. Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data: B.R.-M., M.E.A.-F., R.M.T.H., A.C.-B., A.V.-S. and M.C.-R. Manuscript writing: M.C.-R., A.A.E.-B. and R.G.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by University of Granada, being the study formed as part of a teaching innovation project “The simulation as a teaching tool for the management of clinical cases based on COVID-19 for health sciences students (20-84)”, in the Call for Teaching Innovation Projects and Good Practices of the FIDO UGR Teaching Training and Innovation Plan from the University of Granada 2020–2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Granada.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The databases used and/or analyzed during the performance of this study can be provided by the corresponding author through their appropriate request.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank students and teachers for their collaboration in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Crisol-Moya, E.; Romero-López, M.A.; Caurcel-Cara, M.J. Active Methodologies in Higher Education: Perception and Opinion as Evaluated by Professors and Their Students in the Teaching-Learning Process. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nabovati, E.; Jeddi, F.R.; Ghaffari, F.; Mirhoseini, F. The effects of simulation training on learning of health information systems: A scoping review. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2022, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Ayaz, O.; Ismail, F.W. Healthcare Simulation: A Key to the Future of Medical Education—A Review. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2022, 13, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roussin, C.; Sawyer, T.; Weinstock, P. Assessing competency using simulation: The SimZones approach. BMJ Simul. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2020, 6, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tseng, L.P.; Hou, T.H.; Huang, L.P.; Ou, Y.K. Effectiveness of applying clinical simulation scenarios and integrating information technology in medical-surgical nursing and critical nursing courses. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Martin, A.; Cross, S.; Attoe, C. The Use of in situ Simulation in Healthcare Education: Current Perspectives. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2020, 11, 893–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Effectiveness of Simulation-Based Nursing Education Depending on Fidelity: A Meta-Analysis|BMC Medical Education|Full Text. Available online: https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7 (accessed on 24 July 2022).
  8. Archana, S.; Nilakantam, S.R.; Hathur, B.; Dayananda, M. The Need and Art of Establishing Skill and Simulation Centers to Strengthen Skill-Based Medical Education: Learning Insights and Experience. Ann. Afr. Med. 2021, 20, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Lamé, G.; Dixon-Woods, M. Using clinical simulation to study how to improve quality and safety in healthcare. BMJ Simul. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2020, 6, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Chick, R.C.; Clifton, G.T.; Peace, K.M.; Propper, B.W.; Hale, D.F.; Alseidi, A.A.; Vreeland, T.J. Using Technology to Maintain the Education of Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Surg. Educ. 2020, 77, 729–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Atwa, H.; Shehata, M.H.; Al-Ansari, A.; Kumar, A.; Jaradat, A.; Ahmed, J.; Deifalla, A. Online, Face-to-Face, or Blended Learning? Faculty and Medical Students’ Perceptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Study. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 791352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Battista, R.A.; Ferraro, M.; Piccioni, L.O.; Malzanni, G.E.; Bussi, M. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in COVID 19 Pandemic. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, e80–e85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yeon, J.H.; Shin, Y.S. Effects of Education on the Use of Personal Protective Equipment for Reduction of Contamination: A Randomized Trial. SAGE Open Nurs. 2020, 6, 2377960820940621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mosher, C.; Mukhtar, F.; Alnaami, N.; Akkielah, Y.A.; Alsharif, J.; Khan, T.; Taskiran, H.C.; Zafar, M. Donning and Doffing of Personal Protective Equipment: Perceived Effectiveness of Virtual Simulation Training to Decrease COVID-19 Transmission and Contraction. Cureus 2022, 14, e22943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. O’Callaghan, C.A. OxMaR: Open Source Free Software for Online Minimization and Randomization for Clinical Trials. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/print-resources.html (accessed on 24 July 2022).
  17. Steps to Put on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Available online: https://www.who.int/bangladesh/emergencies/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-update/steps-to-put-on-personal-protective-equipment-(ppe) (accessed on 24 July 2022).
  18. Pozo, J.I.; Pérez Echeverría, M.P.; Cabellos, B.; Sánchez, D.L. Teaching and Learning in Times of COVID-19: Uses of Digital Technologies During School Lockdowns. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 656776. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.656776 (accessed on 24 July 2022). [CrossRef]
  19. Torda, A.; Shulruf, B. It’s what you do, not the way you do it—Online versus face-to-face small group teaching in first year medical school. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singal, A.; Bansal, A.; Chaudhary, P.; Singh, H.; Patra, A. Anatomy education of medical and dental students during COVID-19 pandemic: A reality check. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2021, 43, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cho, M.K.; Kim, M.Y. Factors Affecting Learning Satisfaction in Face-to-Face and Non-Face-to-Face Flipped Learning among Nursing Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zaghal, A.; Marley, C.; Rahhal, S.; Hassanieh, J.; Saadeh, R.; El-Rifai, A.; Qaraqe, T.; ElBejjani, M.; Jaafar, R.; Hoballah, J.J. Face-to-face versus distance learning of basic suturing skills in novice learners: A quantitative prospective randomized trial. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Comparison of In-Person and Telesimulation for Critical Care Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Available online: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.34197/ats-scholar.2021-0053OC (accessed on 8 August 2022).
  24. Dost, S.; Hossain, A.; Shehab, M.; Abdelwahed, A.; Al-Nusair, L. Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e042378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rudolph, J.W.; Raemer, D.B.; Simon, R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: The role of the presimulation briefing. Simul. Healthc. J. Soc. Simul. Healthc. 2014, 9, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Independent and Joint Effects of Teacher Enthusiasm and Motivation on Student Motivation and Experiences: A Field Experiment | Semantic Scholar. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Independent-and-joint-effects-of-teacher-enthusiasm-Frenzel-Taxer/0c03473176692f16c03ebc3b7014431c5f1f227d (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  27. Displayed Enthusiasm Attracts Attention and Improves Recall—PubMed. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33325548/ (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  28. Does Speaker’s Voice Enthusiasm Affect Social Cue, Cognitive Load and Transfer in Multimedia Learning? | Emerald Insight. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ILS-11-2019-0124/full/html (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  29. Does Displayed Enthusiasm Favour Recall, Intrinsic Motivation and Time Estimation?—PubMed. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26211683/ (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  30. Dabrowski, M.; Steliga, A.; Dabrowska, A.; Smereka, J.; Szarpak, Ł. Use simulation to improve the effectiveness of PPE in COVID-19. Disaster Emerg. Med. J. 2020, 5, 171–173. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jen, H.J.; Chou, K.R.; Chang, C.Y. Fostering Nursing Staff Competence in Personal Protective Equipment Education during COVID-19: A Mobile-Video Online Learning Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hoedl, M.; Eglseer, D.; Bauer, S. Associations between personal protective equipment and nursing staff stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 29, 2374–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Verbeek, J.H.; Rajamaki, B.; Ijaz, S.; Sauni, R.; Toomey, E.; Blackwood, B.; Tikka, C.; Ruotsalainen, J.H.; Balci, F.S.K. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 2020, CD011621. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hung, P.P.; Choi, K.S.; Chiang, V.C.L. Using interactive computer simulation for teaching the proper use of personal protective equipment. CIN Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2015, 33, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hannum, D.; Cycan, K.; Jones, L.; Stewart, M.; Morris, S.; Markowitz, S.M.; Wong, E.S. The effect of respirator training on the ability of healthcare workers to pass a qualitative fit test. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1996, 17, 636–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shigayeva, A.; Green, K.; Raboud, J.M.; Henry, B.; Simor, A.E.; Vearncombe, M.; Zoutman, D.; Loeb, M.; McGeer, A.; Team, S.H.I. Factors Associated With Critical-Care Healthcare Workers’ Adherence to Recommended Barrier Precautions During the Toronto Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Outbreak. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2007, 28, 1275–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Online Classes versus Traditional Classes? Comparison during COVID-19—PubMed. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35233404/ (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  38. Currat, L.; Suppan, M.; Gartner, B.A.; Daniel, E.; Mayoraz, M.; Harbarth, S.; Suppan, L.; Stuby, L. Impact of Face-to-Face Teaching in Addition to Electronic Learning on Personal Protective Equipment Doffing Proficiency in Student Paramedics: Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Díaz-Guio, D.A.; Ríos-Barrientos, E.; Santillán-Roldan, P.A.; Mora-Martinez, S.; Díaz-Gómez, A.S.; Martínez-Elizondo, J.A.; Barrientos-Aguiñaga, A.; Arroyo-Romero, M.N.; Ricardo-Zapata, A.; Rodríguez-Morales, A.J. Online-synchronized clinical simulation: An efficient teaching-learning option for the COVID-19 pandemic time and: Beyond. Adv. Simul. 2021, 6, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nichol, K.; Bigelow, P.; O’Brien-Pallas, L.; McGeer, A.; Manno, M.; Holness, D.L. The individual, environmental, and organizational factors that influence nurses’ use of facial protection to prevent occupational transmission of communicable respiratory illness in acute care hospitals. Am. J. Infect. Control 2008, 36, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zhang, H.L.; Yang, S.; Luo, H.X.; You, J.P. The Error-Prone Operational Steps and Key Sites of Self-Contamination During Donning and Doffing of Personal Protective Equipment by Health Care Workers. In Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness; Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.: Onancock, VA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  42. Suen, L.K.P.; Guo, Y.P.; Tong, D.W.K.; Leung, P.H.M.; Lung, D.; Ng, M.S.P.; Lai, T.K.H.; Lo, K.Y.K.; Au-Yeung, C.H.; Yu, W. Self-contamination during doffing of personal protective equipment by healthcare workers to prevent Ebola transmission. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Casalino, E.; Astocondor, E.; Sanchez, J.C.; Díaz-Santana, D.E.; Del Aguila, C.; Carrillo, J.P. Personal protective equipment for the Ebola virus disease: A comparison of 2 training programs. Am. J. Infect. Control 2015, 43, 1281–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Salway, R.J.; Williams, T.; Londono, C.; Roblin, P.; Koenig, K.; Arquilla, B. Comparing Training Techniques in Personal Protective Equipment Use. Prehosp. Disaster Med. 2020, 35, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 12981 g001 550
Figure 1. Study protocol.
Figure 1. Study protocol.
Ijerph 19 12981 g001
Table
Table 1. General characteristics of the participants according to the training modalities.
Table 1. General characteristics of the participants according to the training modalities.
TotalFace-to-Face
Teaching with Active Training		Non-Face-to-Face
Teaching with Passive Training
N = 142N = 72 (50.7)N = 70 (49.3)p Value
Gender
Women90 (63.4)49 (54.4)41 (45.6)0.241
Age (years)22.54 ± 6.3923.44 ± 7.4921.61 ± 4.910.088
Degree
Nursing46 (32.4)22 (47.8)24 (52.2)0.635
Physiotherapy96 (67.6)50 (52.1)46 (47.9)
Academic Year
1st40 (28.2)16 (40.0)24 (60.0)0.279
2nd31 (21.8)17 (54.8)24 (45.2)
3rd71 (50.0)39 (54.9)32 (45.1)
Campus
Granada46 (32.4)22 (47.8)24 (52.2)0.635
Melilla96 (67.6)50 (52.1)46 (47.9)
Data are expressed as frequencies and percentages and as mean and standard deviation (SD).
Table
Table 2. Self-assessment of the management of PPE in the total study population and according to the training modalities (response options as categorical variables).
Table 2. Self-assessment of the management of PPE in the total study population and according to the training modalities (response options as categorical variables).
Please Rate the
Extent to which You Agree or Disagree with Each of the
Following
Statements:		ResponseTotal
(N = 142)		Face-to-Face
Teaching with
Active Training (N = 72)		Non-Face-to-Face
Teaching with Passive Training
(N = 70)
N (%)N (%)N (%)p Value
1. I felt confident in donning prior to receiving this trainingStrongly Disagree24 (16.9)15 (62.5)9 (37.5)0.272
In Disagreement22 (15.5)12 (54.5)10 (45.5)
Neutral31 (21.8)12 (38.7)19 (61.3)
In Agreement35 (24.6)15 (42.9)20 (57.1)
Totally Agree30 (21.1)18 (60.0)12 (40.0)
2. I felt confident in doffing prior to receiving this trainingStrongly Disagree28 (19.7)18 (64.3)10 (35.7)0.125
In Disagreement23 (16.2)11(47.8)12 (52.2)
Neutral35 (24.6)14 (40.0)21 (60.0)
In Agreement26 (18.3)10 (38.5)16 (61.5)
Totally Agree30 (21.1)19 (63.3)11 (36.7)
3. The training that I received explained the steps of donning and doffing adequately for meStrongly Disagree1 (0.7)0 (0.0)1 (100.0)0.467
In Disagreement2 (1.4)0 (0.0)2 (100.0)
Neutral3 (2.1)2 (66.7)1 (33.3)
In Agreement27 (19.0)13 (48.1)14 (51.9)
Totally Agree109 (76.8)57 (52.3)52 (47.7)
4. I felt more confident in donning after receiving this trainingStrongly Disagree1 (0.7)0 (0.0)1 (100.0)0.177
In Disagreement0 (0.0)
Neutral5 (3.5)1 (20.0)4 (80.0)
In Agreement23 (16.2)9 (39.1)14 (60.9)
Totally Agree113 (79.6)62 (54.9)51 (45.1)
5. I felt more confident in doffing after receiving this trainingStrongly Disagree1 (0.7)0 (0.0)1 (100.0)0.192
In Disagreement0 (0.0)
Neutral2 (1.4)0 (0.0)2 (100.0)
In Agreement29 (20.4)12 (41.4)17 (58.6)
Totally Agree110 (77.5)60 (54.5)50 (45.5)
6. This training capture my attentionStrongly Disagree1 (0.7)0 (0.0)1 (100.0)0.190
In Disagreement2 (1.4)0 (0.0)2 (100.0)
Neutral6 (4.2)5 (83.3)1 (16.7)
In Agreement27 (19.0)12 (44.4)15 (55.6)
Totally Agree106 (74.6)55 (51.9)51 (48.1)
Data are expressed as frequencies and percentage.
Table
Table 3. Self-assessment of the management of PPE in the total study population and according to the training modalities (mean of the response option).
Table 3. Self-assessment of the management of PPE in the total study population and according to the training modalities (mean of the response option).
Please Rate the Extent to which you Agree or Disagree with Each of the Following
Statements:		Total
(N = 142)		Face-to-Face
Teaching with
Active Training
(N = 72)		Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training
(N = 70)
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)p Value
1. I felt confident in donning prior to receiving this training3.18 (1.38)3.13 (1.49)3.23 (1.26)0.656
2. I felt confident in doffing prior to receiving this training3.05 (1.41)3.01 (1.54)3.09 (1.27)0.762
3. The training that I received explained the steps of donning and doffing adequately for me4.70 (0.65)4.76 (0.49)4.63 (0.78)0.221
4. I felt more confident in donning after receiving this training4.74 (0.59)4.85 (0.39)4.63 (0.73)0.029
5. I felt more confident in doffing after receiving this training4.74 (0.55)4.83 (0.37)4.64 (0.68)0.042
6. This training capture my attention4.65 (0.69)4.69 (0.59)4.61 (0.79)0.494
Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD).
Table
Table 4. Number of donning and doffing tasks violated in the total sample and according to the training received.
Table 4. Number of donning and doffing tasks violated in the total sample and according to the training received.
Tasks Violated
Total
(N = 142)		Face-to-Face Teaching with Active Training
(N = 72)		Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training
(N = 70)
N (%)N (%)N (%)p Value
Donning Tasks Completed
1. Hand hygiene17 (12.0)12 (70.6)5 (29.4)0.080
2. Put on the isolation gown and tie the straps14 (9.9)8 (57.1)6 (42.9)0.612
3. Put on the mask correctly (mold the metal band to the shape of the nose with your hands and cover up to the bottom of the chin; nose and mouth must be protected)48 (33.8)27 (56.3)21 (43.8)0.345
4. Put on protective glasses18 (12.7)7 (38.9)11 (61.1)0.283
5. Put on the gloves (cover the cuffs of the gown, without leaving bare skin on the wrists)22 (15.5)11 (50.0)11 (50.0)0.943
Doffing Tasks Completed
1. Remove gloves using the correct technique to avoid hand contamination34 (23.9)14 (41.2)20 (58.8)0.203
2. Take off the gown (untie straps gently, without abrupt movements, from the shoulders down and away from the body)43 (30.3)16 (37.2)27 (62.8)0.034
3. Hand hygiene31 (21.8)12 (38.7)19 (61.3)0.131
4. Remove goggles (pulling the back of the temple and pulling it forward away from the head, without touching the front)27 (19.0)10 (37.0)17 (63.0)0.114
5. Take off the mask (do not touch the front part)17 (12.0)5 (29.4)12 (70.6)0.061
6. Hand hygiene29 (20.4)14 (48.3)15 (51.7)0.769
Data are expressed as frequencies and percentage.
Table
Table 5. Time needed to accomplish the protocol in both donning and doffing and the total number of tasks violated between both training modalities.
Table 5. Time needed to accomplish the protocol in both donning and doffing and the total number of tasks violated between both training modalities.
Total
(N = 142)		Face-to-Face Teaching with Active Training (N = 72)Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training
(N = 70)
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)p Value
Time for donning (seconds)120.55 (38.87)120.90 (40.01)120.19 (37.95)0.913
Time for doffing (seconds)71.46 (24.41)75.11 (28.53)67.71 (18.75)0.070
Total number of tasks violated1.87 (1.91)1.53 (1.78)2.23 (1.99)0.029
Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rueda-Medina, B.; Aguilar-Ferrándiz, M.E.; Esteban-Burgos, A.A.; Tapia Haro, R.M.; Casas-Barragán, A.; Velando-Soriano, A.; Gil-Gutiérrez, R.; Correa-Rodríguez, M. Impact of Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training on Personal Protective Equipment Use in Health Science Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912981

AMA Style

Rueda-Medina B, Aguilar-Ferrándiz ME, Esteban-Burgos AA, Tapia Haro RM, Casas-Barragán A, Velando-Soriano A, Gil-Gutiérrez R, Correa-Rodríguez M. Impact of Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training on Personal Protective Equipment Use in Health Science Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912981

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rueda-Medina, Blanca, María Encarnación Aguilar-Ferrándiz, Ana Alejandra Esteban-Burgos, Rosa María Tapia Haro, Antonio Casas-Barragán, Almudena Velando-Soriano, Rocío Gil-Gutiérrez, and María Correa-Rodríguez. 2022. "Impact of Non-Face-to-Face Teaching with Passive Training on Personal Protective Equipment Use in Health Science Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912981

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop