Documents Gómez-Salgado, Juan 3 results

"Background
Occupational footwear is intended to provide protection against the risks associated with work activities. The choice of footwear is complex due to the welfare, health and safety conditions of workers.
Aims
To identify the injuries and problems caused by occupational footwear through a systematic review of the existing literature.
Methods
A literature search was carried out in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Dialnet Plus, Pubmed, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases over the period 2000–23, following the PRISMA Declaration guidelines.
Results
A total of 27 studies were included in the review. The results indicated that there is a wide variety of injuries caused by occupational footwear: from dermal injuries (e.g. calluses) and injuries to the nail apparatus to inflammatory pathologies such as plantar fasciitis or bursitis. In addition, inappropriate footwear can cause pain in the ankle and foot, knees, hips and lower back. Other results include the discomfort derived from the footwear itself.
Conclusions
Inappropriate footwear can cause injuries to the foot and other related bone structures. Further studies are needed on the detection of foot injuries caused by occupational footwear and the levels of action at this level to improve the worker's health, the adaptability of the footwear to the wearer, and the worker's comfort and adherence to the footwear."

"Methods by which the population should be informed when going through a pandemic such as COVID-19 have been questioned because of its influence on the adoption of preventive measures and its effects on mental health. Non-health workers are at risk of psychological distress from exposure to contaminated people or materials or by having to stay at home and adapt their activity to telework. The objective of the study is to analyze information the public receives about COVID-19 and its influence on their level of distress. For this, 1089 questionnaires from non-health workers were collected online between 26 March and 26 April 2020 in Spain, and analysed and distributed by snowball effect. 492 participants carried out essential activities away from home, and 597 did so from home. They were surveyed about information received about COVID-19 regarding its source, time, assessment, or the beliefs expressed in it. Mental health was also measured with Goldberg's General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The classification and regression tree (CART) method was used to design a binary tree with sample cases. It has been found that the time spent learning about COVID-19 and the level of knowledge about symptoms, pathways, prevention, treatment, or prognosis are associated with the level of distress, where 25% of participants were found to have spent more than 3 h daily on this activity. Social media and television are the most widely used sources, but they are considered to be of lower quality and usefulness than official sources. There is greater confidence in healthcare professionals than in the health system, and the main concern of those working away from home is spreading the virus to family members. It has been concluded that there is a need to enhance quality and truthful information on the Internet for non-health workers due to its accessibility, which should be constantly updated, a fact which international and national public bodies, research centers, and journal publishers have begun to understand during the current pandemic. Such quality information is needed to combat distress."

"Background
Non-health workers engaged in essential activities during the pandemic are less researched on the effects of COVID-19 than health workers.
Objective
to study the differences between those who work away from home and those who do so from home, when the effects of fear of contagion cross with those of confinement, about the psychological distress during the COVID-19 in Spain.
Design
Observational descriptive cross-sectional study.
Data sources
The study was carried out receiving 1089 questionnaires from non-health workers that were working away from home and doing so from their homes. The questionnaire included sociodemographic and occupational data, physical symptoms, self-perceived health, use of preventive measures and possible contacts, and the Goldberg GHQ-12.
Results
71.6% of non-health female workers and 52.4% of non-health male workers had psychological distress, with differences among those working away from home and those working from home. The level of psychological distress among non-health workers is predicted by 66.5% through the variables: being a woman, 43 years old or younger, having a home with no outdoor spaces, poor perception of health, number of symptoms, and having been in contact with contaminated people or material. Among workers who work away from home, being self-employed is another predictive variable of distress.
Conclusion
More than the half of the sample showed inadequate management of the psychological distress. There are modifiable factors which provide necessary elements to support a positive attitude of the workers, such as: knowledge of hygiene, transmission of the virus, protective measures, and social distancing measures."