Unmasking misunderstandings

B, Kilgore; Harriger, Cassandra; Gaeta, Laura; Sharpp, Tara J.

doi:10.1097/01.nurse.0000724368.90257.74

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A mixed‐methods online survey (3B) reported that patients felt communication with masks to be especially challenging in healthcare situations and that transparent masks may improve interactions (Saunders et al., 2021). Eleven non‐research articles (5A & 5B) also suggested benefits of using transparent masks in order to preserve facial expressions and allow for lip reading (Altschuler et al., 2021; Clancy, 2021; Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021; Kilgore et al., 2021; Knollman‐Porter & Burshnic, 2020; McKee et al., 2020; Mehta et al., 2020; Mheidly et al., 2020; Mitchell & Hill, 2020; Murphy et al., 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an experimental study (2B) evaluating the impact of dental office‐related noise on speech perception with surgical mask use, both normal hearing‐ and hearing‐impaired listeners had worse speech perception in the noisy environment compared to the quiet environment with a facemask (Mendel et al., 2008). Nine non‐research articles (5A & 5B) also recommended reducing background and environmental noise by suggesting limiting distractions and noise by closing doors, turning off the televisions, and communicating one‐on‐one (Armstrong et al., 2021; Jarvis & Smith, 2021; Kilgore et al., 2021; Knollman‐Porter & Burshnic, 2020; Marler & Ditton, 2021; Mehta et al., 2020; Mheidly et al., 2020; Mitchell & Hill, 2020; Vaidhyanathan et al., 2020). Other environmental modifications included ensuring adequate lighting (5B) (Kilgore et al., 2021) and having adequate signage (5C) (Schroven, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine non‐research articles (5A & 5B) also recommended reducing background and environmental noise by suggesting limiting distractions and noise by closing doors, turning off the televisions, and communicating one‐on‐one (Armstrong et al., 2021; Jarvis & Smith, 2021; Kilgore et al., 2021; Knollman‐Porter & Burshnic, 2020; Marler & Ditton, 2021; Mehta et al., 2020; Mheidly et al., 2020; Mitchell & Hill, 2020; Vaidhyanathan et al., 2020). Other environmental modifications included ensuring adequate lighting (5B) (Kilgore et al., 2021) and having adequate signage (5C) (Schroven, 2021). Although only one research article provided evidence that reducing environmental noise while wearing facemasks is beneficial, this strategy is low risk and logical.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Visual aids such as explanatory books and videos, written messages, and communication boards were recommended by eight non‐research studies (5A & 5B) (Altschuler et al., 2021; Clancy, 2021; Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021; Kilgore et al., 2021; Knollman‐Porter & Burshnic, 2020; Marler & Ditton, 2021; McKee et al., 2020; Vaidhyanathan et al., 2020). The one research study (3B) of communication strategies recommended by parents of hearing‐impaired children during dental visits also provided these suggestions (Champion & Holt, 2000).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…aids such as explanatory books and videos, written messages, and communication boards were recommended by eight non-research studies (5A & 5B) (Altschuler et al, 2021;Clancy, 2021;Dehkordi & Ghiyasvandian, 2021;Kilgore et al, 2021;Knollman-Porter & Burshnic, 2020;Marler & Ditton, 2021;McKee et al, 2020;Vaidhyanathan et al, 2020).…”

Section: Visual Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Shaw,

Lee,

Williams

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFacemasks are an important piece of personal protective equipment (PPE) to mitigate the spread of respiratory illnesses, but they can impede communication between patients and healthcare providers. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify effective communication practices while wearing facemasks.DesignScoping review using a systematic search of articles from the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases.MethodsThe PEO (population, exposure, outcome) methodology was selected for this systematic scoping review. The population of interest (P) includes humans of all ages (children, adults, and older adults); the exposure of interest (E) is PPE that covers the mouth (i.e., facemasks); and the outcome of interest (O) is successful or unsuccessful communication practices. The Johns Hopkins Evidence‐Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals appraisal guidelines were used to determine the level and quality of the research.ResultsThirty‐nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen of these were high‐ or good‐quality research studies, and the remaining 22 were non‐research articles included with separate analysis as part of the scoping review. The 17 articles encompassed 2656 participants. The highest quality evidence indicated that standard surgical masks have the least impact on speech perception compared to other non‐transparent mask types, and that recognizing emotions is less accurate with facemasks, necessitating compensatory actions (i.e., reducing extraneous noise, using a microphone to amplify voice, and employing clear speech). Evidence was contradictory regarding the use of transparent masks. Evidence was of limited quality for other non‐verbal and verbal communication strategies.ConclusionAwareness of communication challenges is crucial when wearing facemasks. More high‐quality studies are needed to evaluate communication techniques when speakers are wearing facemasks. Basic strategies such as selecting an appropriate mask type, reducing extraneous noise, using microphones, verbalizing emotions, and employing clear speech appear to be beneficial.Clinical RelevanceThe findings of this scoping review highlight the importance of considering communication challenges while wearing facemasks in the healthcare settings. The review suggests that selecting an appropriate mask type, reducing extraneous noise, verbalizing emotions, and employing clear speech are some strategies that may be effective in mitigating the impact of facemasks on communication between patients and healthcare providers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visual Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Shaw,

Lee,

Williams

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Execution and viable applications of face shield “a safeguard” against viral infections of cross-protection studies: A comprehensive review

Singh

Pal

Chakravraty

et al. 2021

Journal of Molecular Structure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face shield are the unmistakable plastic gatekeepers secures eyes and face, simpler to wear and a group of specialists state face shields may supplant masks as an increasingly agreeable and progressively successful obstacle to COVID-19. Face shields are useful in stopping respiratory droplets from speading from the wearer to others. The droplets, which come into contact with the shield, are quickly spread over a large area, both transversely and vertically, over the shield, but with a shrinking concentration of droplets, as opposed to face masks, which appear to slide under the nose of the wearer or, worse, collapse entirely off the shield. Hence, a face- shield can be considered as personal protective equipment (PPE), which is a first line of resistance, utilized by the clinicians and forefront health workers for protection against the infectious body fluid and aerosols. Face-shields are mainly fabricated using polycarbonate material, because of their excellent optical transparency in UVA-visible-IR spectrum and mechanical properties. The goal of this article is to provide researchers working in the same area, as well as health and industrial staff, with a detailed analysis of the usage of face shields against bioaerosols and the need for personal security. The reviews main focus on the background of the face shield, provide assistance in the selection, its design and structure, applications, advantages and disadvantages. Lastly, people's view about the usage of face shield as it becomes an essential part of human beings like an accomplice during this current pandemic situation.

show abstract

Interprofessional education activity to improve communication with older adults

Gaeta

Sharpp

2023

Gerontology & Geriatrics Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unmasking misunderstandings

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Best practices for communication while wearing facemasks: A scoping review

Execution and viable applications of face shield “a safeguard” against viral infections of cross-protection studies: A comprehensive review

Interprofessional education activity to improve communication with older adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About