Fit factor compliance of masks and FFP3 respirators in nurses: A case-control gender study

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

The effect of N95 designs on respirator fit and its associations with gender and facial dimensions

This study examined the association of various brands of NIOSH-certified N95 filtering face-piece respirators (FFR) fit with facial dimensions and gender. One hundred and thirty-five participants (77 females and 58 males) were recruited from the previous facial anthropometry study among Malaysians in 2020. Quantitative respirator fit testing of six FFR were performed using the TSI Portacount Pro+ 8038 which comprised of four exercises (bending over, talking, up-down head movement, and side to side head movement). An overall fit factor (FF) of ≥ 100 was considered a pass for each FFR. Analysis was done using T-test, Pearson's correlations, and generalised linear regression. The passing rates for the six FFR were 36.3% (Cup B), 50.4% (Trifold A), 54.1% (Duckbill A), 57.0% (Cup A), 74.1% (Trifold B), and 83.7% (Duckbill B). Both Duckbill B and Trifold B had the highest passing rates for both genders. However, certain FFR models (Cup B, Trifold A, Trifold B, and Duckbill A) fit better for participants with large facial size who were mostly males, while others (Cup A and Duckbill B) specifically fit better for those with small facial size, who were mostly females. This study showed significant positive effect of nose protrusion, nasal root and subnasale-sellion and the negative effect of menton-sellion, bigonial breadth and nose breadth on fit factors of various FFR. The results of this study emphasized the importance of choosing and designing FFR based on local anthropometry data, with careful consideration on the dimensions that affect the respirator fit. Since N95 are commonly used in the healthcare settings to prevent airborne transmission, the practice of respirator fit testing and selecting N95 with high passing rates for healthcare workers need to be emphasized.

The influence of gender and ethnicity on facemasks and respiratory protective equipment fit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) has conventionally been developed for a predominantly white male population that does not represent the healthcare workforce. The literature was reviewed to determine the protection offered to female and BAME users.

METHODS

Five databases were searched. Eligible studies related to respirator fit in the context of anthropometrics, gender and ethnicity. Meta-analysis was performed for gender-based anthropometric differences. A priori protocol registration was not performed.

RESULTS

32 studies were included and anthropometric data was extracted from 15 studies. Meta-analysis revealed 14 anthropometric measurements were significantly smaller for females. Mean differences ranged from 0.37 mm to 22.05 mm. Gender-based anthropometric differences did not always translate to lower fit factor scores, with 12 studies reporting worse performance and fit for females and 10 reporting no gender effect. No studies provided disaggregate anthropometric data by ethnic group. Pass rates (PR) were low or moderate in 12 BAME or mixed-ethnicity cohorts. 14 studies reported associations between facial dimensions (FD) and respirator fit. Three comparative studies showed lower PR among selective BAME people. 18 studies reported RPE performance differed with model and design. Most studies did not prespecify inclusion/exclusion criteria. Small sample size and lack of justification or power calculations was a concern. Significant heterogeneity in study designs limited comparisons, particularly relating to respirator selection or availability and defining study outcomes relating to RPE performance.

CONCLUSION

The literature reports on largely Caucasian or single ethnic populations, and BAME people remain under-represented, limiting comparisons between ethnic groups. Facial anthropometrics vary between gender and likely between ethnicity, which may contribute to lower PR among females and ethnic minorities, particularly Asians. There is a need for studies including a broader spectrum of ethnicities and for consideration of female and BAME users during RPE development.