Impact of personal protective equipment use on health care workers’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis
=========================================================================================================================================================

* Petros Galanis
* Irene Vraka
* Despoina Fragkou
* Angeliki Bilali
* Daphne Kaitelidou

## Summary

**Background** During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers (HCWs) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk clinical settings have been obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE).

**Aim** To assess the impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we examined factors related with a greater risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use.

**Methods** We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane criteria for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL and pre-print services (medRxiv) from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020.

**Findings** Our review included 14 studies with 11,746 HCWs from 16 countries. The estimated overall prevalence of adverse events among HCWs was 78% (95% CI: 66.7-87.5%) with a range from 42.8% to 95.1% among studies. The prevalence of adverse events was higher for the studies with poor quality compared to those with moderate quality (83.5% vs. 67.1%), while increased sample size was related with decreased prevalence (p<0.001). The most frequent adverse events were headache (55.9%), dry skin (54.4%), dyspnoea (53.4%), pressure injuries (40.4%), itching (39.8%), hyperhidrosis (38.5%), and dermatitis (31.0%). Among others, the following factors were related with the risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use: female gender, younger age, obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking pre-existing headache, longer duration of shifts wearing PPE, increased consecutive days with PPE, and increased exposure to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

**Conclusion** The frequency of adverse events amongst HCWs due to PPE use is very high. Further studies should be conducted since the limitations of this review do not allow us to infer conclusive results especially in case of risk factors for the occurrence of adverse events. Healthcare facilities should take the necessary precautions and change the working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent adverse events associated with PPE use and minimize harm to HCWs.

Keywords
*   adverse events
*   COVID-19
*   health care workers
*   personal protective equipment
*   physical health
*   SARS-CoV-2

## Introduction

Health care workers (HCWs) can be exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through clinical settings or community transmission and are essential workers at risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during February 12-July 16, 2020, in the USA, 11% of patients had been identified as HCWs [1], while during March 1-May 31, 2020, among hospitalized adults, 5.9% were HCWs [2]. A meta-analysis [3] found that the prevalence of hospitalization among HCWs infected with COVID-19 is 15.1% and the mortality is 1.5%, while another meta-analysis [4] found that the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs among all COVID-19 patients is 10.1% and the mortality is significantly lower in HCWs as compared to that of all patients (0.3% vs. 2.3%). According to an analysis included studies only in Australia between January 25th and July 8th, HCWs were 2.69 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than the general population [5]. Also, the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs is high (8.7%) especially in North America (12.7%) compared to Europe (8.5%), Africa (8.2), and Asia (4%) [6].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19 in high-risk clinical settings such as isolation wards, intensive care units, emergency rooms and general medical wards have been obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE includes equipment or specific clothing (e.g. goggles, mop caps, respirator masks, face shields, shoe covers, gowns and gloves) that protects HCWs against infectious materials [7]. The necessity of PPE to prevent transmission of viruses to HCWs has already proven during the severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARS) [8] and Ebola epidemic [9]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs have to wear PPE unceasingly for more than 6-8 hours in a shift. Moreover, inappropriate PPE reuse (e.g. donning of a used PPE item without contamination) due to global PPE shortages remains affecting HCWs and patients safety and the sustainability of health care systems [10–13]. Under these circumstances, World Health Organization diffuses recommendations for optimizing PPE use by HCWs caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients especially in countries with severe PPE shortages [7].

Several studies have already shown that adverse reactions from PPE use amongst HCWs are common including dermatitis, allergy, atopy, facial itch, acne, rash etc. [14–18]. Considering the long-time wearing of PPE among HCWs and PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipated a high incidence of physical health problems due to PPE use among HCWs. To our knowledge, the overall impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health during COVID-19 pandemic is unknown. Thus, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health during COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to examine factors related with a greater risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use.

## Methods

### Data sources and strategy

We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [19] and the Cochrane criteria [20] for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL and pre-print services (medRxiv) from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020. Also, we examined reference lists of all relevant articles and we removed duplicates. We applied the following filters during the search in the databases: humans, English language, and journal article. We used the following strategy searching in title/abstract query: ((“health care worker*” OR “healthcare worker*” OR “healthcare personnel” OR “health care personnel” OR “health personnel” OR “health care professional*” OR “healthcare professional*” OR staff OR “nursing staff” OR professional* OR worker* OR doctor* OR physician* OR clinician* OR nurs* OR midwives OR midwife* OR paramedic* OR practitioner*) AND (“personal protective equipment”)) AND (COVID-19 OR COVID19 OR COVID OR SARS-CoV* OR “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus*” OR coronavirus*). The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228221).

### Selection and eligibility criteria

Two independent reviewers performed study selection and discrepancies were resolved by a third, senior reviewer. We initially screened title and abstract of the records and then full-text. We included studies that examine impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health during COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we included studies examining factors related with a greater risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use. We examined articles that were published in English, except reviews, qualitative studies, protocols, case reports, editorials, and letters to the Editor. All types of HCWs directly involving in the management of COVID-19 patients were accepted for inclusion, while we excluded studies with health care students and general population. Also, we excluded studies that examined effects of PPE use on psychological or mental health of HCWs.

### Data extraction and quality assessment

We extracted the following data from each study: authors, location, sample size, age, gender, study design, sampling method, assessment of the adverse events, response rate, data collection time, type of publication (journal or pre-print service), number and type of adverse events among HCWs, factors related with a greater risk of adverse events, and the level of analysis (univariate or multivariable).

Two reviewers used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools to assess quality of studies as poor, moderate or good [21]. Regarding cross-sectional studies, an 8-point scale is used with a score of ≤3 refers to poor quality, a score of 4-6 points refers to moderate quality, and a score of 7-8 points refers to good quality.

### Statistical analysis

For each study we extracted the sample size and adverse events that occurred among HCWs due to PPE use. We initially calculated the prevalence of any adverse event and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each included study. Then, we transformed these prevalences with the Freeman-Tukey Double Arcsine method before pooling [22]. Moreover, we pooled the results for adverse events that occurred among HCWs at least in three studies. We assessed between-studies heterogeneity with the Hedges Q statistic and I2 statistics. I2 values higher than 75% indicates high heterogeneity, while a p-value<0.1 for the Hedges Q statistic indicates statistically significant heterogeneity [23]. A random effect model was applied to estimate pooled effects since the heterogeneity between results was very high [23]. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the influence of each study on the overall effect. We used a funnel plot and the Egger’s test to assess the publication bias with a P-value<0.05 indicating publication bias [24]. A priori, we considered gender, age, sample size, the continent that studies were conducted, studies quality, study design, assessment of the outcome, data collection time, and publication type (journal or pre-print service) as sources of heterogeneity. Due to the limited data and limited variability of some of these variables, we decided to perform meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis considering gender, sample size, studies quality, and data collection time as sources of heterogeneity. We did not perform meta-analysis for the factors related with the occurrence of adverse events among HCWs since the data were very limited and highly heterogeneous. We used the OpenMeta[Analyst] to perform meta-analysis [25].

## Results

### Identification and selection of studies

Flowchart of the literature search is summarized in PRISMA format and it is shown in Figure 1. We initially identified 2699 potential records through PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL and medRxiv removing duplicates. After the screening of the titles and abstracts, we removed 2671 records and we added 4 more records found by the reference lists scanning. Finally, we included 14 studies [26–39] in this meta-analysis that met our inclusion criteria.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F1)

Figure 1. 
Flowchart of the literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.

### Characteristics of the studies

Main characteristics of the studies included in our systematic review and meta-analysis are shown in Table 1. A total of 11,746 HCWs from 16 countries were included in this review. Number of HCWs in studies ranged from 40 to 4306, while females’ percentage ranged from 46.0% to 91.8%. The majority of studies were conducted in Asia (n=10) [26,28,30–33,35,36,38,39], two studies were conducted in Europe [34,37], one study was conducted in South America [27], and one study included HCWs from 10 countries [29]. All studies were cross-sectional, while 13 studies [26–30,32–39] used a convenience sample method and one study [31] used a purposeful sampling method. Assessment of adverse events was self-reported through questionnaires in 13 studies [26–35,37–39], while in one study [36] a clinical diagnosis was performed. All studies were published in journals and seven studies [26,28,29,31,32,38,39] reported response rate.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T1)

Table 1. 
Main characteristics of the studies included in this systematic review.

### Quality assessment

Quality assessment of cross-sectional studies included in this systematic review is shown in Table 2. Quality was poor in nine studies [26,29,31,33–37,39] and moderate in five studies [27,28,30,32,38].

View this table:
[Table 2a.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T2)

Table 2a. 
Quality of cross-sectional studies included in this systematic review.

View this table:
[Table 2b.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T3)

Table 2b. 
Quality of cross-sectional studies included in this systematic review.

### Meta-analysis

A random effect model was applied to estimate pooled prevalence of adverse events since the heterogeneity between results was very high (I2=99.39, p-value for the Hedges Q statistic < 0.001). The estimated overall prevalence of adverse events among HCWs was 78% (95% CI: 66.7-87.5%) (Figure 2). Prevalence among studies ranged from 42.8% [30] to 95.1% [31]. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that no single study had a disproportional effect on the pooled prevalence, which varied between 76.4% (95% CI: 64.5-86.4%), with Hu et al. [31] excluded, and 80.3% (95% CI: 73.8-86.1%) with Jiang et al. [30] excluded. A publication bias was potential since p-value for Egger’s test was <0.05 and the shape of the funnel plot was asymmetrical (Web Figure 2).

![Web Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F3.medium.gif)

[Web Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F3)

Web Figure 1. 
A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis of the prevalence of adverse events among health care workers.

![Web Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F4.medium.gif)

[Web Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F4)

Web Figure 2. 
Funnel plot of the prevalence of adverse events among health care workers.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F2)

Figure 2. 
Forest plot of the prevalence of adverse events among health care workers.

According to subgroup analysis, the prevalence of adverse events was higher for the studies with poor quality (83.5% [95% CI: 75.4-90.2%], I2=97.64) compared to those with moderate quality (67.1% [95% CI: 50.4-81.8%], I2=99.13). Meta-regression analysis identified that increased sample size was related with decreased prevalence of adverse events among HCWs (p<0.001), (Web figure 3). Also, the prevalence of adverse events was independent of the gender distribution (p=0.32), and data collection time (p=0.63).

![Web Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F5.medium.gif)

[Web Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/F5)

Web Figure 3. 
Meta-regression analysis with the prevalence of adverse events among health care workers as the dependent variable and the sample size as the independent variable.

Adverse events among HCWs due to personal protective equipment use during COVID-19 pandemic are listed in Table 3. We pooled the results for adverse events that occurred among HCWs at least in three studies and the results are presented in Table 4. According to the pooled results, the adverse events that occurred more often were headache (55.9% [95% CI: 35.8-75.0%]), dry skin (54.4% [95% CI: 25.4-81.8%]), dyspnoea (53.4% [95% CI: 27.2-78.6%]), pressure injuries (40.4% [95% CI: 27.7-53.8%]), itching (39.8% [95% CI: 16.2-66.3%]), hyperhidrosis (38.5% [95% CI: 15.3-64.9%]), and dermatitis (31.0% [95% CI: 11.1-55.5%]).

View this table:
[Table 3a.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T4)

Table 3a. 
Adverse events among health care workers due to personal protective equipment use during the COVID-19 pandemic in the studies included in this systematic review.

View this table:
[Table 3b.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T5)

Table 3b. 
Adverse events among health care workers due to personal protective equipment use during the COVID-19 pandemic in the studies included in this systematic review.

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T6)

Table 4. 
Meta-analysis for the adverse events among health care workers due to personal protective equipment use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

### Risk factors for adverse events

Eleven studies [26–33,35,38,39] investigated risk factors for adverse events among HCWs due to personal protective equipment use during COVID-19 pandemic (Table 5). Six studies [21,27,28,32,38,39] used multivariable models to eliminate confounding factors, while all studies except one [33] measured the occurrence of any adverse event as the dependent variable.

View this table:
[Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.03.21251056/T7)

Table 5. 
Factors related with a greater risk of adverse events among health care workers due to personal protective equipment use during the COVID-19 pandemic in the studies included in this systematic review.

We found that demographic, clinical and job characteristics were related with the risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use.

Regarding gender, four studies [31,33,35,38] found that females had higher risk of adverse events with ORs ranging from 1.87 to 3.20, while one study [30] found the opposite (OR:1.54 for males). Moreover, four studies [27,31,33,35] showed that younger age was associated with increased risk of adverse events, while one study [26] showed the opposite. Among HCWs, nurses and physicians were at the greater risk of developing adverse events [26].

Several clinical characteristics of the HCWs affected the occurrence of adverse events. In particular, comorbidity such as diabetes mellitus, obesity, pre-existing headache and smoking significantly increased risk of adverse events [28,32,33]. Similar, heavy sweating was a risk factor for adverse events [30].

We found that job characteristics affected adverse events in a significant way. The longer duration of shifts wearing PPE, the greater the risk of adverse events with ORs ranging from 1.24 to 4.26 [27–30,32,38]. Two studies [27,38] found that shifts >6 hours was a risk factor, while two studies [32,39] found a different cut-off point of 4 hours. Moreover, increased consecutive days with PPE [26,28] and higher grade of PPE [30,39] significantly increased risk of adverse events among HCWs. Our review showed that increased exposure to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients [26,33,38], working in hospitals with a more severe epidemic [38], and no use of prevention inputs [27] increased the probability of adverse events.

## Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that investigates the impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we searched for risk factors related with adverse events among HCWs.

We found that the overall prevalence of adverse events among HCWs was very high (78%) with a wide range from 42.8% to 95.1% among studies. PPE use amongst HCWs is related with skin reactions such as dermatitis, allergy, atopy, facial itch, acne, rash [14–18]. HCWs wear PPE items for long periods of time due to the shortage of PPE especially at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased workload in healthcare facilities [40,41]. This scenario increases considerably the risk of adverse events such as skin reactions. The problem is further complicated by the lack of training and awareness among HCWs about the use of PPE [42,43]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs have to encounter several challenges regarding PPE such as donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) equipment in the appropriate way, wearing PPE items for long periods of time, difficulties in communication with patients and colleagues etc. [44,45]. HCWs should undergo compulsory training on the correct use of PPE and guidelines should emphasize on the correct use of PPE using video training and simulations than traditional methods of teaching [7,45].

According to our results, the most prevalent physical complaint from the use of PPE was headaches. Previous studies confirm that headaches are common among HCWs when the N95 face mask is used especially for a prolonged period [46–48]. It is well known that headaches could arise from the continuous pressure of pericranial soft issues by putting on objects with tight straps around the head, e.g. helmets, hats, goggles [49–51]. Also, breathing discomfort due to N95 face mask has also been reported in the literature confirming our finding that dyspnoea is a common adverse event among HCWs due to PPE use [52–54]. A survey among dental professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic found that the prolonged use of filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) respirators was related with moderate breathing difficulties [55]. Moreover, increased levels of anxiety and stress among HCWs during the pandemic [56,57] may contribute to breathing difficulties.

We found that skin reactions (e.g. dry skin, itching, dermatitis and rash) were the more frequent adverse events that HCWs encountered. While increased use of gloves and masks and excessive sanitizing of hands amongst HCWs are indispensable to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they also has negative implications leading to a removal of normal bacterial flora and a disruption of the natural protective skin barrier [58–60]. In that case, the frequency and the severity of occupational skin diseases increase [61–63].

Adverse events caused by PPE use are a comprehensive effect with sociodemographic, clinical and job characteristics as the contributing factors. Regarding the sociodemographic factors, we found that gender, age and type of occupation affect the impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health. The effect of gender and age is controversial. In particular, four studies [31,33,35,38] found that adverse events are more common among females and one study [30] found the opposite. A multi-center survey in China [64] found a higher prevalence of pressure injuries in male hospitalized patients while another study with outpatients in Turkey [65] found that acne, hand eczema and urticaria are more common in females and seborrheic dermatitis is more common in males. Differences in hormones, genetic factors, activity levels, hygiene behavior and use of skin care products could explain differences in skin reactions among males and females HCWs. Regarding age, four studies [27,31,33,35] found that younger age is related with greater risk of skin reactions, while one study [26] found the opposite. Several studies found that skin reactions are more frequent in young adults [65–67].

According to our review, comorbidity is a risk factor on new-onset symptoms from the PPE use. In particular, obesity, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and pre-existing headache were related with increased odds of adverse events. Obesity and smoking decrease cardiopulmonary capacity causing dyspnea [68,69]. Obese individuals and smokers could face more symptoms because of the use of masks without valve that brings difficulties in breathing. Laferty and McKay [70] found that N95 masks cause breathing resistance resulting on a decrease in SpO2 and an increase in CO2 levels. Moreover, isolation gowns cover the entire body causing heavy sweating and continuous dehydration especially among smokers and obese individuals. A scoping review [55] among dental professionals has revealed moderate breathing difficulties due to the use of filtering facepiece 2 respirators, while the prolonged duration of respirators usage was related with headaches. This finding is confirmed by a study [46] that was conducted during the SARS pandemic and found that 37.3% of HCWs who were N95 face-masks developed headaches. This percentage was even higher (81%) in a study [32] that was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and found also that the odds of headache were 4.2 times higher in HCWs with pre-existing headache than among those without a pre-existing headache. Likelihood of developing headache was greater among HCWs with a long-term utilization of N95 face masks [32]. Prolonged use of N95 masks could result in hypercapnia and hypoxemia which led to headache [31].

Seven studies [27–30,32,38,39] in our review found that the duration of PPE use is an important risk factor for adverse events among HCWs. The literature comes to an agreement with this finding since Lim et al. [46] during the SARS pandemic revealed that the increased duration of N95 mask use is related with headaches development, while Shenal et al. [48] found a relation between prolonged wear of respiratory protection and discomfort. Also, longer wearing time of N95 respirators, surgical masks and goggles compress cheeks, ears, nose bridge, and forehead which could be the main cause of skin and pressure injuries on the head and face [71]. Additionally, the longer the wearing time of PPE items, the more the sweaty with heavy sweating stimulates the skin causing redness, itching and pain [30]. The problem is further complicated by the increased consecutive days with PPE leading to more adverse skin effects among HCWs [26,28]. Moreover, increased exposure to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients is related with increased wearing time of PPE because of the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2 [26,33,38]. In light of the above situations, daily wearing time of PPE items among HCWs should be decreased to protect them and avoid the adverse impact of PPE use.

Our study has several limitations introducing bias. First, 10 out of 14 included studies were conducted in Asia and thus further studies should be performed worldwide, allowing us to generalize the results. Also, quality of studies was poor (in nine studies) or moderate (in five studies), while adverse events were more frequent in studies with poor quality compared to those with moderate quality. There is a need to perform more valid studies since studies with poor quality may inflate the results. In the same way, the fact that the assessment of adverse events was self-reported in 13 out of 14 studies may introduce information bias that exaggerates the frequency of adverse events. This bias could be eliminated with clinical diagnosis of adverse events due to PPE use. Variability in study designs and populations introduces high heterogeneity in our meta-analysis. We applied a random effect model and we performed subgroup and meta-regression analysis to overcome this issue. We searched six databases and the reference lists of the studies included in our review but always there is a probability to omit relevant studies. Data regarding the factors that were related with a greater risk of adverse events were scarce and only six studies used multivariable analysis to eliminate confounders. Also, causal inferences between risk factors and adverse events are impossible since all studies were cross-sectional. Thus, studies with more appropriate design (e.g. cohort studies and case-control studies) and more sophisticated analysis should be conducted to infer more valid results regarding risk factors for adverse events due to PPE use.

In conclusion, the frequency of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use is very high, while there are several sociodemographic, clinical and job risk factors for these events. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to threat public health, and adverse events frequency and severity among HCWs may get worse. PPE among HCWs is imperative to avoid the widespread diffusion of SARS-CoV-2 but could be harmful due to the long-term utilization. Thus, organizations worldwide should publish guidelines for the appropriate PPE use to prevent these adverse events especially in countries with PPE shortages. Healthcare facilities should take the necessary precautions and change the working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. regular breaks, shorter shifts, adequate supply of PPE, air-conditioning, prophylactic dressing, better material, proper fitting masks, and reduction in wearing time of PPE) to prevent adverse events associated with PPE use and minimize harm to HCWs. Creating a secure and safe work environment for HCWs could lead to a better management of the COVID-19 pandemic and an increase in work performance. Since skin reactions are the more frequent adverse events, policymakers should pay attention to skin hygiene and skin protection including use of skin or sealant protector, protection of injured areas, no use of oily products, wipe of skin to remove sweat, and removal of the masks as frequent as possible. HCWs’ training about appropriate PPE use and knowledge of skin hygiene is of outmost importance. HCWs should recognize symptoms and signs of initial tissue damages adopting then preventive measures to avoid more severe injuries. For example, dry skin and dehydration-induced dermatoses could be avoided with adequate hydration, while moisturizers could help to restore the integrity of skin barrier.

## Data Availability

Data will be available after reasonable request

## Footnotes

*   **Conflicts of interest:** none

*   **Funding:** None

*   **Declarations of interest:** None

*   Received February 3, 2021.
*   Revision received February 3, 2021.
*   Accepted February 5, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  [1].CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Characteristics of Health Care Personnel with COVID-19 - United States, February 12-April 9, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:477–81. [https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6915e6](https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6915e6).
    
    

2.  [2].Kambhampati AK, O’Halloran AC, Whitaker M, Magill SS, Chea N, Chai SJ, et al. COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations Among Health Care Personnel - COVID-NET, 13 States, March 1-May 31, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1576–83. [https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6943e3](https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6943e3).
    
    

3.  [3].Gholami M, Fawad I, Shadan S, Rowaiee R, Ghanem H, Omer A, et al. COVID- 19 and Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2021:S1201971221000230. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.013).
    
    

4.  [4].Sahu AK, Amrithanand VT, Mathew R, Aggarwal P, Nayer J, Bhoi S. COVID-19 in health care workers – A systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2020;38:1727–31. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.113](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.113).
    
    

5.  [5].Quigley AL, Stone H, Nguyen PY, Chughtai AA, MacIntyre CR. Estimating the burden of COVID-19 on the Australian healthcare workers and health system during the first six months of the pandemic. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2021;114:103811. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103811](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103811).
    
    

6.  [6].Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, Bilali A, Kaitelidou D. Seroprevalence of SARS- CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in health care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect 2020. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.11.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.11.008).
    
    

7.  [7].World Health Organization. Rational use of personal protective equipment for COVID-19 and considerations during severe shortages. 2020.
    
    

8.  [8].Moore D, Gamage B, Bryce E, Copes R, Yassi A. Protecting health care workers from SARS and other respiratory pathogens: Organizational and individual factors that affect adherence to infection control guidelines. American Journal of Infection Control 2005;33:88–96. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.003).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15761408&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227535000004&link_type=ISI) 

9.  [9].Fischer WA, Hynes NA, Perl TM. Protecting health care workers from Ebola: personal protective equipment is critical but is not enough. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:753–4. [https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1953](https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1953).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M14-1953&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25155746&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

10. [10].Asian Development Bank, Park C-Y, Kim K, Asian Development Bank, Roth S, Asian Development Bank, et al. Global Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment amid COVID-19: Supply Chains, Bottlenecks, and Policy Implications. Asian Development Bank; 2020. [https://doi.org/10.22617/BRF200128-2](https://doi.org/10.22617/BRF200128-2).
    
    

11. [11].Cohen J, Rodgers Y van der M. Contributing factors to personal protective equipment shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventive Medicine 2020;141:106263. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106263](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106263).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

12. [12].Rowan NJ, Laffey JG. Challenges and solutions for addressing critical shortage of supply chain for personal and protective equipment (PPE) arising from Coronavirus disease (COVID19) pandemic – Case study from the Republic of Ireland. Science of The Total Environment 2020;725:138532. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138532](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138532).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138532&link_type=DOI) 

13. [13].Sharma A, Gupta P, Jha R. COVID-19: Impact on Health Supply Chain and Lessons to Be Learnt. Journal of Health Management 2020;22:248–61. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063420935653](https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063420935653).
    
    

14. [14].Bhoyrul B, Lecamwasam K, Wilkinson M, Latheef F, Stocks SJ, Agius R, et al. A review of non□glove personal protective equipment□related occupational dermatoses reported to EPIDERM between 1993 and 2013. Contact Dermatitis 2019;80:217–21. [https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13177](https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13177).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/cod.13177&link_type=DOI) 

15. [15].Foo CCI, Goon ATJ, Leow Y-H, Goh C-L. Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment against severe acute respiratory syndrome□? a descriptive study in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 2006;55:291–4. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00953.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00953.x).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00953.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17026695&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241110900006&link_type=ISI) 

16. [16].Mekonnen TH, Yenealem DG, Tolosa BM. Self-report occupational-related contact dermatitis: prevalence and risk factors among healthcare workers in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia, 2018—a cross-sectional study. Environ Health Prev Med 2019;24:11. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-019-0765-0](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-019-0765-0).
    
    

17. [17].Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Silverberg JI, DeKoven JG, Maibach HI, Sasseville D, et al. Safety equipment: When protection becomes a problem. Contact Dermatitis 2019;81:130–2. [https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13254](https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13254).
    
    

18. [18].Higgins CL, Palmer AM, Cahill JL, Nixon RL. Occupational skin disease among Australian healthcare workers: a retrospective analysis from an occupational dermatology clinic, 1993-2014. Contact Dermatitis 2016;75:213–22. [https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12616](https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12616).
    
    

19. [19].Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19621072&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

20. [20].Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. New Jersey: WILEY Blackwell; 2019.
    
    

21. [21].Santos WM dos, Secoli SR, Püschel VA de A. The Joanna Briggs Institute approach for systematic reviews. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem 2018;26. [https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2885.3074](https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2885.3074).
    
    

22. [22].Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013;67:974–8. [https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-203104](https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-203104).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiI2Ny8xMS85NzQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMi8wNS8yMDIxLjAyLjAzLjIxMjUxMDU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

23. [23].Higgins JPT. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557).
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjcvNzQxNC81NTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMi8wNS8yMDIxLjAyLjAzLjIxMjUxMDU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

24. [24].Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMTUvNzEwOS82MjkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMi8wNS8yMDIxLjAyLjAzLjIxMjUxMDU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

25. [25].Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:80. [https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-80](https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-80).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2288-9-80&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19961608&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

26. [26].Zhao Y, Liang W, Luo Y, Chen Y, Liang P, Zhong R, et al. Personal protective equipment protecting healthcare workers in the Chinese epicentre of COVID-19. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:1716–8. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.029](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.029).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

27. [27]. Coelho M de MF, Cavalcante VMV, Moraes JT,  Menezes LCG de, Figueirêdo SV, Branco MFCC, et al. Pressure injury related to the use of personal protective equipment in COVID-19 pandemic. Rev Bras Enferm 2020;73:e20200670. [https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0670](https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0670).
    
    

28. [28].Çağlar A, Kaçer İ, Hacimustafaoğlu M, Öztürk B, Öztürk K. Symptoms associated with personal protective equipment among frontline healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 2020. [https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.455](https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.455).
    
    

29. [29].Tabah A, Ramanan M, Laupland KB, Buetti N, Cortegiani A, Mellinghoff J, et al. Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey. Journal of Critical Care 2020;59:70–5. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

30. [30].Jiang Q, Song S, Zhou J, Liu Y, Chen A, Bai Y, et al. The Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prevention Status of Skin Injury Caused by Personal Protective Equipment among Medical Staff in Fighting COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study. Advances in Wound Care 2020;9:357–64. [https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2020.1212](https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2020.1212).
    
    

31. [31].Hu K, Fan J, Li X, Gou X, Li X, Zhou X. The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19. Medicine 2020;99:e20603. [https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020603](https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020603).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MD.0000000000020603&link_type=DOI) 

32. [32].Ong JJY, Bharatendu C, Goh Y, Tang JZY, Sooi KWX, Tan YL, et al. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment - A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19. Headache 2020;60:864–77. [https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13811](https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13811).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/head.13811&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32232837&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

33. [33].Metin N, Turan Ç, Utlu Z. Changes in dermatological complaints among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak in Turkey. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat 2020;29:115–22.
    
    

34. [34].Guertler A, Moellhoff N, Schenck TL, Hagen CS, Kendziora B, Giunta RE, et al. Onset of occupational hand eczema among healthcare workers during the SARS□COV □2 pandemic: Comparing a single surgical site with a COVID□19 intensive care unit. Contact Dermatitis 2020;83:108–14. [https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13618](https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13618).
    
    

35. [35].Yildiz C, Kaban H, Tanriverdi FŞ. COVID-19 pandemic and personal protective equipment: Evaluation of equipment comfort and user attitude. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health 2020:1–8. [https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2020.1828247](https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2020.1828247).
    
    

36. [36].Singh M, Pawar M, Bothra A, Maheshwari A, Dubey V, Tiwari A, et al. Personal protective equipment induced facial dermatoses in healthcare workers managing Coronavirus disease 2019. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020;34:e378–80. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16628](https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16628).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

37. [37].Battista RA, Ferraro M, Piccioni LO, Malzanni GE, Bussi M. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in COVID 19 Pandemic: Related Symptoms and Adverse Reactions in Healthcare Workers and General Population. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2020;Publish Ahead of Print. [https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002100](https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002100).
    
    

38. [38].Lin P, Zhu S, Huang Y, Li L, Tao J, Lei T, et al. Adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak: a survey in Wuhan and its surrounding regions. Br J Dermatol 2020;183:190–2. [https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19089](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19089).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

39. [39].Zuo Y, Hua W, Luo Y, Li L. Skin reactions of N95 masks and medial masks among healthcare personnel: A self-report questionnaire survey in China. Contact Dermatitis 2020;83:145–7. [https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13555](https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13555).
    
    

40. [40].Ahmed J, Malik F, Bin Arif T, Majid Z, Chaudhary MA, Ahmad J, et al. Availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Among US and Pakistani Doctors in COVID-19 Pandemic. Cureus 2020;12:e8550. [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8550](https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8550).
    
    

41. [41].Hakim M, Khattak FA, Muhammad S, Ismail M, Ullah N, Atiq Orakzai M, et al. Access and Use Experience of Personal Protective Equipment Among Frontline Healthcare Workers in Pakistan During the COVID-19 Emergency: A Cross-Sectional Study. Health Secur 2020. [https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2020.0142](https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2020.0142).
    
    

42. [42].World Health Organization. Preferred product characteristics for personal protective equipment for the health worker on the frontline responding to viral hemorrhagic fevers in tropical climates. Geneva: 2018.
    
    

43. [43].Lakshmi P, Jennifer H. G, Stanly A. M, Mary C. A study on personal protective equipment use among health care providers, Tamil Nadu. Int J Community Med Public Health 2018;5:1771. [https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20181380](https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20181380).
    
    

44. [44].Liu Q, Luo D, Haase JE, Guo Q, Wang XQ, Liu S, et al. The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study. The Lancet Global Health 2020;8:e790–8. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30204-7](https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30204-7).
    
    

45. [45].Iwu CJ, Jordan P, Jaca A, Iwu CD, Schutte L, Wiysonge CS. Cochrane corner: personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases such as COVID-19 in healthcare staff. Pan Afr Med J 2020;37:148. [https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.37.148.24934](https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.37.148.24934).
    
    

46. [46].Lim ECH, Seet RCS, Lee K-H, Wilder-Smith EPV, Chuah BYS, Ong BKC. Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers. Acta Neurol Scand 2006;113:199–202. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00560.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00560.x).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00560.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16441251&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234917700009&link_type=ISI) 

47. [47].Radonovich LJ, Cheng J, Shenal BV, Hodgson M, Bender BS. Respirator tolerance in health care workers. JAMA 2009;301:36–8. [https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.894](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.894).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2008.894&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19126810&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000262220400017&link_type=ISI) 

48. [48].Shenal BV, Radonovich LJ, Cheng J, Hodgson M, Bender BS. Discomfort and Exertion Associated with Prolonged Wear of Respiratory Protection in a Health Care Setting. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2012;9:59–64. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2012.635133](https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2012.635133).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/15459624.2012.635133&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22168256&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

49. [49].Rahmani Z, Kochanek A, Astrup JJ, Poulsen JN, Gazerani P. Helmet-induced headache among Danish military personnel. Scand J Public Health 2017;45:818–23. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817731417](https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817731417).
    
    

50. [50].Krymchantowski AV. Headaches due to external compression. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2010;14:321–4. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-010-0122-x](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-010-0122-x).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20499214&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

51. [51].O’Brien JC. Swimmer’s Headache, or Supraorbital Neuralgia. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 2004;17:418–9. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2004.11928006](https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2004.11928006).
    
    

52. [52].Khoo K-L, Leng P-H, Ibrahim IB, Lim T. The changing face of healthcare worker perceptions on powered air-purifying respirators during the SARS outbreak. Respirology 2005;10:107–10. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1843.2005.00634.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1843.2005.00634.x).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1440-1843.2005.00634.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15691247&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227576100017&link_type=ISI) 

53. [53].Rebmann T, Carrico R, Wang J. Physiologic and other effects and compliance with long-term respirator use among medical intensive care unit nurses. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:1218–23. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2013.02.017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2013.02.017).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2013.02.017&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23768438&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

54. [54].Chughtai AA, Stelzer-Braid S, Rawlinson W, Pontivivo G, Wang Q, Pan Y, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis 2019;19:491. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4109-x](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4109-x).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12879-019-4109-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31159777&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

55. [55].Farronato M, Boccalari E, Del Rosso E, Lanteri V, Mulder R, Maspero C. A Scoping Review of Respirator Literature and a Survey among Dental Professionals. IJERPH 2020;17:5968. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165968](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165968).
    
    

56. [56].Zhang W-R, Wang K, Yin L, Zhao W-F, Xue Q, Peng M, et al. Mental Health and Psychosocial Problems of Medical Health Workers during the COVID-19 Epidemic in China. Psychother Psychosom 2020;89:242–50. [https://doi.org/10.1159/000507639](https://doi.org/10.1159/000507639).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

57. [57].Elkholy H, Tawfik F, Ibrahim I,  Salah El-Din W, Sabry M, Mohammed S, et al. Mental health of frontline healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 in Egypt: A call for action. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2020:20764020960192. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020960192](https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020960192).
    
    

58. [58].Warner RR, Boissy YL, Lilly NA, Spears MJ, McKillop K, Marshall JL, et al. Water disrupts stratum corneum lipid lamellae: damage is similar to surfactants. J Invest Dermatol 1999;113:960–6. [https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1747.1999.00774.x](https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1747.1999.00774.x).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1523-1747.1999.00774.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10594737&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000084436600015&link_type=ISI) 

59. [59].de Almeida e Borges LF, Silva BL, Gontijo Filho PP. Hand washing: changes in the skin flora. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:417–20. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2006.07.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2006.07.012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2006.07.012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17660014&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000248628400010&link_type=ISI) 

60. [60].Khosrowpour Z, Ahmad Nasrollahi S, Ayatollahi A, Samadi A, Firooz A. Effects of four soaps on skin trans-epidermal water loss and erythema index. J Cosmet Dermatol 2019;18:857–61. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12758](https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12758).
    
    

61. [61].Hamnerius N, Svedman C, Bergendorff O, Björk J, Bruze M, Pontén A. Wet work exposure and hand eczema among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 2018;178:452–61. [https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15813](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15813).
    
    

62. [62].Visscher MO, Randall Wickett R. Hand hygiene compliance and irritant dermatitis: a juxtaposition of healthcare issues. Int J Cosmet Sci 2012;34:402–15. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2012.00733.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2012.00733.x).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1468-2494.2012.00733.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22691060&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

63. [63].Malik M, English J. Irritant hand dermatitis in health care workers. Occup Med (Lond) 2015;65:474–6. [https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv067](https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv067).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/occmed/kqv067&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26070815&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

64. [64].Jiang Q, Li X, Qu X, Liu Y, Zhang L, Su C, et al. The incidence, risk factors and characteristics of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients in China. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014;7:2587–94.
    
    

65. [65].Bilgili ME, Yildiz H, Sarici G. Prevalence of skin diseases in a dermatology outpatient clinic in Turkey. A cross-sectional, retrospective study. J Dermatol Case Rep 2013;7:108–12. [https://doi.org/10.3315/jdcr.2013.1156](https://doi.org/10.3315/jdcr.2013.1156).
    
    

66. [66].Zeichner JA, Baldwin HE, Cook-Bolden FE, Eichenfield LF, Fallon-Friedlander S, Rodriguez DA. Emerging Issues in Adult Female Acne. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2017;10:37–46.
    
    

67. [67].Romero FR, Haddad GR, Miot HA, Cataneo DC. Palmar hyperhidrosis: clinical, pathophysiological, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. An Bras Dermatol 2016;91:716–25. [https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20165358](https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20165358).
    
    

68. [68].Kachur S, Lavie CJ, de Schutter A, Milani RV, Ventura HO. Obesity and cardiovascular diseases. Minerva Med 2017;108:212–28. [https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.17.05022-4](https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.17.05022-4).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.23736/S0026-4806.17.05022-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 

69. [69].Mukamal KJ. The effects of smoking and drinking on cardiovascular disease and risk factors. Alcohol Res Health 2006;29:199–202.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17373409&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244940400007&link_type=ISI) 

70. [70].Laferty E, McKay R. Physiologic effects and measurement of carbon dioxide and oxygen levels during qualitative respirator fit testing. J Chem Health Saf 2006;13:22–8.
    
    

71. [71].Tan KT, Greaves MW. N95 acne. Int J Dermatol 2004;43:522–3. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2004.02338.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2004.02338.x).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15230894&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F02%2F05%2F2021.02.03.21251056.atom)