The effect of microbiological containment systems on dexterity

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 166-173

  Sawyer, Joanna ^a   Bennett, Allan ^a   Haines, Victoria ^b   Elton, Edward ^b   Crago, Kathryn ^a   Speight, Sara ^a  

^a PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biocontainment; Dexterity; Gloves; Laboratory safety

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AEROSOL; ARTICLE; BIOSAFETY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLOVE; HAND; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; JOB PERFORMANCE; MALE; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VENTILATOR; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

ADULT; BACTERIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; CONTAINMENT OF BIOHAZARDS; ENVIRONMENT, CONTROLLED; FEMALE; GLOVES, SURGICAL; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR SKILLS; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE DEVICES;

EID: 33846424932     PISSN: 15459624     EISSN: 15459632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15459620601163172     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Collins, C.: Laboratory Acquired Infections. London: Butterworth & Co. Ltd., 1983.
2. Bennett, A., S.R. Parks, and M. Dennis: Containment testing of negative pressure isolators used to house laboratory animals infected with BL3 agents. Lab. Animals. (In Press)
3. Berridge, D., G. Starky, N.A.G. Jones, and J. Chamberlain: A randomized controlled trial of double versus single gloving in vascular surgery. J. R. Coll. Surg. Edinb. 43:9-10 (1998).
4. Grimmond, T., T. Rings, C. Taylor, et al.: Sharps injury reduction using sharpsmart-A reusable sharps management system. J. Hosp. Infect. 54(3):232-238 (2003).
5. Sewell, D.: Laboratory-associated infections and biosafety. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 8(3):389-405 (1995).
6. Herwald, B.: Laboratory-acquired parasitic infections from accidental exposures. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 14(4):659-688 (2001).
7. Murdoch, J.: Can a simple test of visual-motor skill predict the performance of microsurgeons? J. R. Coll. Edinb. 39(3):150-152 (1994).
8. Datta, V.: Relationship between skill and outcome in the laboratory-based model. Surgery 131(3):318-323 (2002).
9. Sawyer, J., and A.M. Bennett: Comparing the level of dexterity offered by latex and nitrile Safeskin gloves. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 50(3):289-296 (2006).
10. Tiffin, J.: The Purdue Pegboard: Norms and studies of reliability and validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 32:234-247 (1948).
11. Hines, M., and J. O'Connor: A measure of finger dexterity. J. Personnel Res. 4:379-382 (1926).
12. Fleishman, E., and W.E. Hempel: A factor analysis of dexterity tests. Personnel Psychol. 7:15-32 (1954).
13. Green, H., and I.R. Berman: A manual of selected occupational tasks for use in public employment offices. Employment Stabilization Res. Inst. 2:59-75 (1933).
14. Darley, J.: The reliability of the tests in the standard battery. Employment Stabilization Res. Inst. 3:194-199 (1934).
15. Bingham, W.: Tweezer dexterity test. In Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937. pp. 281-286.
16. Reddon, J., D.M. Gill, S.E. Gauk, and M.D. Maerz: Purdue Pegboard: Test-retest estimates. Percept. Motor Skills 66(2):503-506 (1988).
17. Desrosiers, J., R. Hebert, G. Bravo, and E. Dutil: The Purdue Pegboard Test: Normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disabil. Rehabil. 17(5):217-224 (1995).
18. Buddenburg, L., and C. Davis: Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 54(5):555-558 (2000).
19. Brito, G., and T.R. Santos Morales: Developmental norms for the Gardner Steadiness Test and the Purdue Pegboard: A study with children of a metropolitan school in Brazil. Brazil. J. Med. Biol. Res. 35:931-949 (2002).
20. Pennathur, A., L.R. Contrerasa, K. Arcautea, and W. Dowling: Manual dexterity of older Mexican American adults: A cross-sectional pilot experimental investigation. Int. J. Ind. Ergonom. 32:419-431 (2003).
21. Hayes, E.: Selecting women for shop work. Personnel J. 11(2):69-85 (1932).
22. Riley, M., D.J. Cochran, and C.A. Schanbacher: Force capability differences due to gloves. Ergonomics 28:441-447 (1985).
23. Rogers, B., and L. Goodno: Evaluation of interventions to prevent needlestick injuries in health care occupations. Am. J. Prev. Med. 18(4S):90-98 (2000).
24. Nelson, J., and A. Mital: An ergonomic evaluation of dexterity and tactility with increase in examination/surgical glove thickness. Ergonomics 38(4):723-733 (1995).
25. Ruff, R., and S.B. Parker: Gender- and age-specific changes in motor speed and eye-hand coordination in adults: Normative values for the finger tapping and grooved pegboard tests. Percept. Motor Skills 76(3, Pt. 2):1219-1230 (1993).
26. Peters, M., P. Servos, and R. Day: Marked sex differences on a fine motor skill task disappear when finger size is used as covariate. J. Appl. Psychol. 75(1):87-90 (1990).
27. Peters, M., and P. Campagnaro: Do women really excel over men in manual dexterity? J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 22(5):1107-1112 (1996).
28. Vecchi, T., and L. Girelli: Gender differences in visio-spatial processing: The importance of distinguishing between passive storage and active manipulation. Acta Psychologica 99:1-16 (1998).
29. Chipman, K., E. Hampson, and D. Kimura: A sex difference in reliance on vision during manual sequencing tasks. Neuropsychologia 40(7):910-916 (2002).