| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
top_img
J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs > Volume 32(3); 2025 > Article
Kim and Choi: Determinants of Clinical Nurses' Compliance with Use of Personal Protective Equipment

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) use and aimed to identify the determinants of PPE compliance among clinical nurses after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This descriptive correlational study included 203 nurses working at five general and tertiary hospitals in Korea. Data were collected from September 10 to 20, 2024 using structured questionnaires. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance with the Scheffé post-hoc test, Pearson's correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression.

Results

The average scores were 4.29/5, 5.39/7, 4.19/5, and 4.58/5 for attitudes toward PPE, organizational culture of infection control, safety climate, and PPE compliance, respectively. PPE compliance was positively correlated with attitudes toward PPE (r=.56), organizational culture of infection control (r=.57), and all four subdomains of safety climate-availability of PPE (r=.50), absence of job hindrances (r=.41), training (r=.52), and cleanliness and orderliness (r=.35). The factors that significantly influenced PPE compliance were PPE availability (β=.27, p<.001), organizational culture of infection control (β=.26, p=.001), and attitudes toward PPE (β=.14, p=.028). The model explained 51.9% of the variance in PPE compliance (F=16.42, p<.001).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that improving PPE compliance requires systematic education, interventions to strengthen organizational feedback and communication systems, and the provision of appropriate, consistently available, and user-friendly PPE.

INTRODUCTION

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is a fundamental means of safeguarding workers from physical, chemical, and biological hazards encountered on the job, thus playing a critical role in ensuring workplace safety and preventing occupational injuries [1]. In healthcare settings, the proper use of PPE is essential to protect healthcare workers from infection and prevent the spread of pathogens within hospitals [2]. Donning PPE is emphasized as a core component of Standard Precautions, an infection control strategy that treats all patients as potential sources of infection [3].
Over the past decades, outbreaks of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide, greatly increasing the risk of healthcare-associated transmission [4]. These large scale epidemics have underscored the importance of PPE through the increased attention to guidelines, training, and policy development [5]. In response, the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have reinforced PPE use as a key element of pandemic preparedness and routine infection control by issuing updated recommendations for the protection of healthcare personnel and patients [6,7].
Despite these advances, inappropriate PPE selection and self-contamination during donning and doffing continue to be the major contributors to healthcare-associated infections [8,9]. Although correct PPE use effectively reduces infection risk among healthcare workers, consistent compliance to standardized protocols remains inadequate in clinical practice [9]. Evidence suggests that individual, environmental, and organizational factors influence PPE compliance [4].
Since the onset of COVID-19, the research on PPE has progressed by examining various influencing factors. Individual factors such as knowledge, perception, attitude, and job stress; organizational factors such as institutional support and communication; and environmental factors such as nursing work environment and safety climate have been identified as significant determinants of PPE use [10-12]. Studies have also explored self-contamination during PPE removal [13], the impact of PPE shortages, and reuse during the early pandemic period [14].
However, most extant investigations have focused on crisis situations and neglected routine PPE practices across diverse clinical departments. Given that patient acuity, infection risk, and working conditions vary by unit, there is a clear need for research that reflects nurses' everyday PPE use in non-pandemic settings. Understanding baseline PPE compliance and its determinants in ordinary clinical practice will provide vital evidence for strengthening infection control systems and informing policy development.
Accordingly, this study assesses nurses' PPE compliance under routine clinical conditions and analyzes the personal, organizational, and environmental factors influencing their compliance. The findings will support targeted interventions to enhance PPE practices and contribute to more effective infection prevention strategies in healthcare settings.

METHODS

1. Study Design

This descriptive correlational study examined clinical nurses' perception of infection control culture, safety climate, their attitudes regarding PPE, and the factors influencing PPE compliance.

2. Participants

The study population comprised nurses working in general and tertiary hospitals who provided direct patient care, routinely performed PPE donning and doffing, and agreed with the study's purpose and procedures. Nurses with fewer than six months of clinical experience or those not engaging in patient care were excluded. New graduate nurses attain a stable level of clinical competence by six months of practice, minimizing the variability inherent to the early transition period [15], which was the justification for the six-month criterium. A total of 210 nurses were recruited for this study, considering a potential 10% dropout rate. This number was consistent with the minimum required sample size calculated using G*Power 3.1.9, which assumed an effect size of .15, a significance level of .05, 18 predictors, and a power of .90, yielding 183 participants. The power level of .90 was determined based on a previous investigation of PPE use among cleaning staff [16]. After excluding seven participants due to ineligibility or incomplete responses, data from 203 nurses were included in the final analysis.

3. Measurements

1) Attitudes toward PPE

Attitudes toward PPE were measured using a five-item tool originally developed by Kim and Lee [17] and revised by Cho [5], with permission granted by Cho Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=" strongly disagree" to 5=" strongly agree"), with higher scores indicating a more positive attitude. Cronbach's ⍺ was .78 for the original version [17], .81 in Cho's study [5], and .74 in this study.

2) The organizational culture of infection control

The organizational culture of infection control was measured using a 10-item instrument originally developed by Park [18] for patient-safety culture and subsequently modified and refined by Moon and Jang [19] to assess organizational culture in relation to infection control guideline implementation, with the authors' permission. Each item is rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1=" strongly disagree" to 7=" strongly agree"), with higher scores indicating a more positive perception of the infection control culture. Cronbach's ⍺ was .85 for Moon and Jang's study [19], and .90 in this study.

3) Safety climate

Turnberg and Daniell [20] developed the Healthcare Safety Climate Measurement Tool, which Kang and Kim [21] translated and back-translated. Cho [5] then obtained permission to revise and enhance the original instrument. In this study, Cho's version [5] is used with the author's permission, excluding infection control culture items (feedback, management support, minimal conflict, and good communication) and consists of 11 items across four domains: availability of PPE (5 items), absence of job hindrances (1 item), training (4 items), and cleanliness and orderliness (1 item). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale where one means not at all and five means very much, with higher scores indicating a more positive perception of the safety climate for PPE. In Cho's study [5], domain-specific Cronbach's ⍺ ranged from .44 to .91 and the overall Cronbach's ⍺ was .89. In this study, Cronbach's ⍺ values for availability of PPE and training were .67 and .89, respectively, and the overall Cronbach's ⍺ was .85.

4) PPE compliance

PPE compliance was measured using an 18-item instrument we developed according to the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency's Standard Infection Control Guidelines for Healthcare-Associated Infections [3], including criteria for selecting each type of PPE and the proper sequence and technique for donning and doffing. Content validity index (CVI) was confirmed by one nursing professor, three infection control nurses, and two nurse managers, with all items achieving a CVI ≥0.80. The instrument comprised 18 items: one on hand hygiene, four on gloves, five on gowns, four on masks, and four on face protection. Compliance items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=" never performed" to 5=" always performed,")" with higher scores indicating greater compliance. In this study, the Cronbach's ⍺ was .93.

4. Data Collection

Convenience sampling was used in this study. After obtaining institutional approval via email, recruitment notices including the survey link and QR code were distributed by education coordinators at five hospitals and posted on an online nursing community forum. Data were collected between September 10 and 20, 2024 via an online survey. Participants who voluntarily agreed to participate accessed the survey through the link or QR code provided. Completion required approximately 20 minutes, and those who submitted the completed questionnaire received a small token of appreciation.

5. Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS/WIN 28(IBM Corp., NY, USA). Participants' general characteristics, organizational culture of infection control, safety climate PPE attitudes, PPE awareness, and compliance were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. Differences in PPE compliance according to participants' general characteristics were examined using independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis was conducted using the Scheffé test. The relationships between organizational culture of infection control, safety climate, PPE attitudes, PPE awareness, and compliance were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficients. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing PPE compliance.

6. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hospital D (IRB No. 2024-19). On the first page of the online survey, participants were informed of the study's purpose, procedures, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and their consent was obtained.

RESULTS

1. Differences in PPE Compliance According to Participant Characteristics

Regarding participants' general characteristics, 94.1% (191) were women and the mean age was 32.48±6.83 years, with the largest age group (23∼29 years) accounting for 42.9%(87). Unmarried participants comprised 63.5% (129) and 67.5% (137) lived with others. The educational level was bachelor's degree for 85.7%(174), master's degree for 8.9% (18), and associate's degree for 5.4% (11). The employment setting was public hospitals for 82.3% (167) and general hospitals for 77.8%(158). The mean clinical experience was 8.74±7.05 years, with 66.0% (134) reporting five or more years of experience. The departmental distributions were as follows: medical ward 44.8% (91), surgical ward 32.0% (65), intensive care unit 10.8% (22), emergency room 8.4% (17), and other 4.0% (8). The influenza vaccination coverage was 88.2% (179). PPE training was received by 76.8% (156) of the participants; among them, one session was received by 77.6% (121) and sessions under 30 minutes were received by 53.8% (84). The training methods included group lectures and online modules (30.5%, 67).
Significant differences in PPE compliance were found according to age (F=6.21, p=.002), marital status (t=4.24, p<.001), clinical experience (F=3.80, p=.024), and department (F=3.87, p=.005). Nurses aged 40 years or older demonstrated significantly higher PPE compliance scores than those aged 23∼29 and 30∼39 years. Additionally, participants working in the intensive care unit and other departments scored higher on PPE compliance than those working in the emergency room (Table 1).
Table 1.
Differences in PPE Compliance According to Participant Characteristics (N=203)
Characteristics Categories n (%) M± SD t or F p
Sex Men 12 (5.9) 4.24±0.94 -1.35 .205
Women 191 (94.1) 4.61±0.45
Age (year) 32.48±6.83
23∼29a 87 (42.9) 4.52±0.51 6.21 .002
30∼39b 82 (40.4) 4.54±0.52 c> a, b
≥40c 34 (16.7) 4.85±0.30
Marital status Married 74 (36.5) 4.75±0.33 4.24 <.001
Unmarried 129 (63.5) 4.49±0.55
Cohabitation status Yes 137 (67.5) 4.60±0.49 0.47 .638
No 66 (32.5) 4.56±0.52
Education Associate's degree 11 (5.4) 4.43±0.63 0.97 .381
Bachelor's degree 174 (85.7) 4.58±0.50
Master's degree 18 (8.9) 4.70±0.41
Hospital ownership type Public hospital 167 (82.3) 4.60±0.48 0.78 .437
Private hospital 36 (17.7) 4.53±0.59
Hospital type General hospital 158 (77.8) 4.61±0.48 1.43 .155
Tertiary hospital 45 (22.2) 4.49±0.54
Clinical experience (year) <3 33 (16.3) 4.47±0.56 3.80 .024
3∼<5 36 (17.7) 4.44±0.64
≥5 134 (66.0) 4.65±0.43
Working department Medical ward 91 (44.8) 4.59±0.49 3.87 .005
Surgical ward 65 (32.0) 4.61±0.46 b, c> a
Emergency departmenta 17 (8.4) 4.17±0.74
Intensive care unitb 22 (10.8) 4.72±0.32
Othersc 8 (4.0) 4.75±0.31
Influenza vaccination status Yes 179 (88.2) 4.57±0.51 -1.00 .318
No 24 (11.8) 4.68±0.43
Experience of PPE education Yes 156 (76.8) 4.62±0.48 1.82 .073
No 47 (23.2) 4.46±0.55
PPE education frequency 1 time 121 (77.6) 4.60±0.49 2.74 .068
2 times 22 (14.1) 4.55±0.51
≥3 times 13 (8.3) 4.91±0.14
Education time (per session) <30 minutes 84 (53.8) 4.58±0.50 -1.26 .210
≥30 minutes 72 (46.2) 4.67±0.46

M=mean; PPE=personal protective equipment; SD=standard deviation;

N=156.

2. Participants' Level of Attitudes toward PPE, Organizational Culture of Infection Control, Safety Climate, and PPE Compliance

Participants' mean attitudes toward PPE scored 4.29± 0.54 out of 5. The organizational culture of infection control was 5.39±0.98 out of 7, and safety climate averaged 4.19±0.57 out of 5. The safety climate subscales were availability of PPE, with a score of 4.42±0.58, absence of job hindrances with 3.35±1.25, training with 4.07±0.76, and cleanliness and orderliness with 4.38±0.77. PPE compliance averaged 4.58±0.50 out of 5, with the highest performance for masks (4.72±0.44), followed by gloves (4.65 ±0.54), hand hygiene (4.59±0.48), face shields (4.52±0.64), and gowns (4.50±0.62) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Levels of Organizational Culture of Infection Control, Safety Climate, Attitudes toward PPE, PPE Awareness and PPE Compliance (N=203)
Variables M± SD Min Max Range
Organizational culture of infection control 5.39±0.98 2.30 7.00 1∼7
Safety climate 4.19±0.57 2.09 5.00 1∼5
   Availability of PPE 4.42±0.58 2.20 5.00 1∼5
   Absence of job hindrances 3.35±1.25 1.00 5.00 1∼5
   Training 4.07±0.76 1.50 5.00 1∼5
   Cleanliness and orderliness 4.38±0.77 1.00 5.00 1∼5
Attitudes toward PPE 4.29±0.54 2.40 5.00 1∼5
PPE compliance 4.58±0.50 2.00 5.00 1∼5
   Hand hygiene 4.59±0.48 2.22 5.00 1∼5
   Gloves 4.65±0.54 1.50 5.00 1∼5
   Gown 4.50±0.62 2.40 5.00 1∼5
   Mask 4.72±0.44 2.75 5.00 1∼5
   Face shield 4.52±0.64 1.50 5.00 1∼5

M=mean; Max=maximum; Min=minimum; PPE=personal protective equipment; SD=standard deviation.

3. Correlation between Participants' Attitudes Toward PPE, Organizational Culture of Infection Control, Safety Climate, PPE Compliance

In this study, PPE compliance was positively correlated with attitudes toward PPE (r=.56, p<.001), organizational culture of infection control (r=.57, p<.001), and all four subdomains of the safety climate: availability of PPE (r= .50, p <.001), absence of job hindrances (r=.41, p <.001), training (r=.52, p<.001), and cleanliness and orderliness (r=.35, p<.001). PPE attitudes were also positively correlated with infection control organizational culture (r=.64, p<.001) and the safety climate subdomains (r=.40∼63, p< .001) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Correlations among the Main Variables (N=203)
Variables PPE compliance Attitudes toward PPE Organizational culture of infection control Availability of PPE Absence of job hindrances Training Cleanliness and orderliness
r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p)
PPE compliance 1
Attitudes toward PPE .56(<.001) 1
Organizational culture of infection control .57(<.001) .64(<.001) 1
Availability of PPE .50(<.001) .41(<.001) .39(<.001) 1
Absence of job hindrances .41(<.001) .40(<.001) .56(<.001) .35(<.001) 1
Training .52(<.001) .63(<.001) .70(<.001) .46(<.001) .41(<.001) 1
Cleanliness and orderliness .35(<.001) .44(<.001) .55(<.001) .47(<.001) .28(<.001) .65(<.001) 1

PPE=personal protective equipment.

4. Factors Influencing PPE Compliance

To identify factors influencing PPE compliance, multiple regression analysis was performed using predictors that differed significantly by compliance level: age, marital status, clinical experience, and department. Those showing significant correlations included organizational culture of infection control, safety climate subscales, and their attitudes toward PPE. Categorical variables were dummy-coded. Prior to the analysis, age was excluded from the final model due to high collinearity with clinical experience in the initial analysis (Variance Inflation Factor, VIF > 7). Residual analysis prior to adjustment indicated violations of normality (Shapiro-Wilk, p<.001) and homo-scedasticity (Breusch-Pagan, p<.001), and 16 cases exceeding the Cook's distance threshold (4/n) were identified as influential points. These cases were removed (N=187), and heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors (HC3) were applied in the analysis. After removing influential cases, the Durbin-Watson statistic was 1.80, indicating no autocorrelation of residuals. In the final adjusted model, all tolerance values ranged from 0.35 to 0.91 and all VIF values ranged from 1.10 to 2.85, which are well below the commonly accepted thresholds (VIF >5 or 10; Tolerance <0.20), confirming the absence of multicollinearity. The model was significant (F=16.42, p <.001) and explained 51.9% of the variance in PPE compliance. Attitudes toward PPE (β=.14, p=.028), organizational culture of infection control (β=.26, p=.001), and PPE availability (β=.27, p< .001) emerged as significant positive predictors (Table 4).
Table 4.
Factors Affecting PPE Compliance (N=187)
Variables Categories B SE β t p
(Constant) 2.35 0.22 10.72 <.001
Clinical experience 0.01 0.00 .09 1.64 .104
Marital status* Married (ref.)
Unmarried -0.05 0.07 -04 -0.07 .484
Working department* Medical ward (ref.)
Surgical ward 0.07 0.05 .08 1.41 .161
Emergency department -0.19 0.13 -.09 -1.41 .160
Intensive care unit 0.07 0.06 .06 1.31 .191
Others 0.14 0.11 .06 1.34 .181
Attitudes toward PPE 0.12 0.05 .14 2.22 .028
Organizational culture of infection control 0.13 0.04 .26 3.39 .001
Availability of PPE 0.23 0.05 .27 4.98 <.001
Absence of job hindrances 0.01 0.02 .04 0.65 .515
Training 0.08 0.06 .09 1.38 .169
Cleanliness and orderliness -0.09 0.05 -.10 -1.73 .085
R2=.55, Adjusted R2=.52, F=16.42, p<.001

PPE=personal protective equipment; reF=reference group;

* Dummy variable.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to examine the relationships between variables related to PPE compliance and to identify the factors influencing compliance among nurses employed in general or tertiary hospitals. Specially, the analysis focus on factors at the individual level, the organizational level, and the environmental level to provide a comprehensive understanding of determinants affecting PPE compliance in clinical practice.
PPE compliance averaged 4.58 out of 5. Compliance was highest for masks, followed by gloves, facial shields, and gowns. These results are in stark contrast to early- to the mid-2010s studies, ranked compliance as gloves, masks, gowns, and facial shields [12,22]. This shift may reflect the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, PPE use was strongly emphasized and became routine in hospital settings. In particular, because COVID-19 was transmitted via respiratory droplets and aerosols, government and institutional mandates for mask wearing, heightened recognition of aerosol transmission risks, and expanded distribution of facial shields may have collectively contributed to marked improvements in respiratory and facial shields compliance [23]. Notably, compliance of the appropriate selection of long-sleeved gowns and facial shield was low in situations where the risk of exposure to blood and body fluids was high. This suggests that participants who frequently came into contact with patients via their hands tended to have a heightened awareness of the risk of transmission through hand-mediated contact with blood and body fluids. By contrast, there appears to be a relative lack of awareness regarding the potential for infection transmission and its severity through contact involving other skin areas or the face [3,10]. Therefore, nurses are recommended to perform a point-of-risk assessment (PCRA) based on the patient's condition and the nature of the nursing task to evaluate the likelihood and severity of exposure to blood and body fluids. Based on the PCRA, they should select and properly wear the appropriate PPE [24]. Apart from information delivery, there may be a need for educational programs that can lead to behavioral changes by promoting the correct selection and use of PPE in response to varying levels of exposure risk in clinical settings [25]. These programs may be more effective when they incorporate practical training and feedback into real-world scenarios [26].
According to the results of the multiple regression analysis, the most significant factor influencing compliance with PPE was the availability of PPE, a subfactor of safety climate. This finding is consistent with previous studies reporting that the ability to easily access PPE when needed may improve compliance with infection control practices [22]. Timely provision and accessibility of PPE are critical to ensure consistent compliance with infection control protocols [27]. Therefore, hospitals should establish systematic distribution and inventory management systems to ensure that PPE is readily available and tailored to users' physical characteristics and comfort. Additionally, at the policy level, it is necessary to incorporate PPE-related costs such as infection prevention management fees into national healthcare reimbursement systems to ensure sustainable support.
The second most influential factor was the organizational culture for infection control, which was found to be at a similar level to that reported in studies involving nurses at small- and medium-sized hospitals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic [28]. However, these levels were lower than those reported in studies conducted during the pandemic [29]. This difference may reflect a temporary rise in awareness during the global crisis, when infection control efforts intensified worldwide. By contrast, Korea had already reinforced its infection control infrastructure following the 2015 MERS outbreak through strengthened policies and accreditation standards, which likely contributed to a sustained baseline level of infection control culture [30]. Nevertheless, to achieve further improvement, ongoing efforts to strengthen organizational culture may be necessary. Previous studies have identified the organizational culture of safety within healthcare institutions as a critical factor influencing PPE compliance, complementing individual-level factors, such as awareness and attitudes toward PPE use [31]. To maintain an effective infection control culture, it may be important to establish robust communication systems among staff members, cultivate an institutional climate that prioritizes infection prevention, and foster a culture that promotes constructive and positive feedback [25,32].
Attitudes toward PPE were the third predictor of PPE compliance. This finding is consistent with previous studies reporting that a positive attitude toward PPE use increases the likelihood of proper compliance with infection control practices [33]. This suggests that beyond physical availability and organizational support, individual healthcare workers' willingness and motivation to use PPE are important determinants of compliance. Positive attitudes may enhance compliance through increased perceived benefits and reduced resistance to PPE use, even when use is inconvenient or uncomfortable [34]. However, positive attitudes toward PPE do not always result in consistent compliance, pointing to a potential attitude-behavior gap [8]. This gap suggests that despite recognizing the importance of PPE, compliance may remain low due to factors such as limited knowledge, lack of education and training, and discomfort during use [35]. To reduce this gap requires practical, scenario-based training and timely feedback within real clinical conditions. These inconsistent findings underscore the need for further research to examine the conditions under which attitudes translate into actual PPE use, as well as the interplay between individual- and organizational-level factors.
This study identified the factors influencing PPE compliance among clinical nurses in the post COVID-19 pandemic era. However, it is not without limitations. First, as the study relied on self-reported survey data, there was a potential for response bias due to participants' subjective perceptions. Future studies are encouraged to incorporate direct observations or objective assessment methods to complement these findings. Second, the tools used to measure PPE compliance were developed by the researchers and, thus, require further validation to ensure their reliability and construct validity. In addition, the compliance measurement tool used in this study underwent only content validity assessment, and future research should focus on developing instruments with established reliability and various forms of validity. Third, the study was conducted among nurses working in general hospitals or tertiary hospital, which limits the generalizability of the findings to all healthcare settings. Therefore, future research may benefit from including a broader range of healthcare institutions to allow for more comprehensive and generalizable conclusions.
Despite these limitations, this study makes a meaningful contribution by investigating PPE compliance among nurses working in diverse clinical departments responsible for direct patient care rather than focusing solely on high-risk units or specialties with high infectious disease exposure. Notably, the constant availability of PPE, the organizational culture for infection control, and attitudes toward PPE were identified as significant determinants. Based on these findings, it may be important to establish systematic strategies to enhance PPE compliance and to develop practical approaches to improve compliance. In particular, comprehensive strategies addressing individual, organizational, and environmental factors should be implemented to strengthen PPE compliance in hospital setting. Furthermore, by identifying a range of factors that influence PPE use, this study may offer foundational insights for the development of educational and interventional programs applicable to clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to comprehensively identify the determinants of PPE compliance among clinical nurses in the changing healthcare environment following the COVID-19 pandemic. The results revealed that PPE availability, organizational culture for infection control, and positive attitudes toward PPE significantly influenced compliance, collectively explaining 47% of the variance. To improve PPE compliance among clinical nurses, it is necessary that the constant provision of appropriate and user-friendly PPE, foster a strong organizational culture that supports infection control through constructive feedback and effective communication, and implement systematic educational programs to strengthen positive attitudes and safe PPE practices. As this study relied on self-reported data, future research should incorporate complementary methods, such as direct observation or objective evaluation, to obtain more accurate assessments. Additionally, targeted intervention programs should be developed and rigorously evaluated to improve PPE compliance among clinical nurses.

Notes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
AUTHORSHIP
Study conception and design acquisition - Kim K and Choi J; Data collection - Kim K; Data analysis & Interpretation - Kim K and Choi J; Drafting & Revision of the manuscript - Kim K and Choi J.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Please contact the corresponding author for data availability.

REFERENCES

1. Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. Technical guidelines on the use and management of personal protective equipment [Internet]. Seoul: KOSHA; 2013. [cited 2024 June 20]. Available from: https://www.kosha.or.kr/kosha/data/guidanceG.do

2. Honda H, Iwata K. Personal protective equipment and improving compliance among healthcare workers in high-risk settings. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases. 2016; 29(4):400-406. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000280
crossref pmid
3. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Standard Infection Control Guidelines for Healthcare-Associated Infections [Internet]. Cheongju: Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; 2017. [cited 2024 October 24]. Available from: https://www.kdca.go.kr/filepath/boardSyview.es?bid=0019&list_no=138061&seq=1

4. George J, Shafqat N, Verma R, Patidar AB. Factors influencing compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) use among healthcare workers. Cureus. 2023; 15(2):e35269. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35269
crossref pmid pmc
5. Cho YJ. A study on knowledge, attitude, safety environment perception, and performance of personal protective equipment use among intensive care unit nurses [master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University; 2020. p. 87-91.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infection control basics: Standard precautions for all patient care [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019. [cited 2024 December 8]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/basics/standard-precautions.html

7. World Health Organization. Infection prevention and control during health care for probable or confirmed cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. [cited 2024 December 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/10665-174652

8. Hossain MA, Rashid MUB, Khan MAS, Sayeed S, Kader MA, Hawlader MDH. Healthcare workers' knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding personal protective equipment for the prevention of COVID-19. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2021; 14: 229-238. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S293717
crossref pmid pmc
9. Verbeek JH, Rajamaki B, Ijaz S, Sauni R, Toomey E, Blackwood B, et al. Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; 4(4):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011621.pub4
crossref pmid
10. Kim EJ, Kim HJ. Knowledge, attitude, safety environment perception, and adherence to personal protective equipment among intensive care unit nurses: a descriptive observational study. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science. 2023; 25(1):63-72. https://doi.org/10.7586/jkbns.23.349
crossref
11. Rozenbojm MD, Nichol K, Spielmann S, Holness DL. Hospital unit safety climate: relationship with nurses' adherence to recommended use of facial protective equipment. American Journal of Infection Control. 2015; 43(2):115-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.10.027
crossref pmid pmc
12. Elshaer N, Agage H. Nurses' perception and compliance with personal protective equipment and hand hygiene during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association. 2022; 97(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42506-022-00109-1
crossref pmid pmc
13. Mumma JM, Durso FT, Ferguson AN, Gipson CL, Casanova L, Erukunuakpor K, et al. Human factors risk analyses of a doffing protocol for Ebola-level personal protective equipment: mapping errors to contamination. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2018; 66(6):950-958. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix957
crossref pmid pmc
14. Rowan NJ, Laffey JG. Unlocking the surge in demand for personal and protective equipment (PPE) and improvised face coverings arising from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic - Implications for efficacy, reuse and sustainable waste management. Science of The Total Environment. 2021; 752: 142259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142259
crossref pmid pmc
15. Lima S, Newall F, Jordan HL, Hamilton B, Kinney S. Development of competence in the first year of graduate nursing practice: a longitudinal study. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2016; 72(4):878-888.
crossref pmid
16. Shin KS. Factors influencing personal protective equipment use among workers in medical device reprocessing and cleaning [master's thesis]. Ulsan: University of Ulsan; 2022. p. 11.

17. Kim KN, Lee OC. Nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of personal protective equipment: Focused on MERS response. Journal of the Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2016; 23(4):402-410. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2016.23.4.402
crossref
18. Park HH. Structural model on nurses' patient safety management activities [doctoral dissertation]. Daejeon: Eulji University; 2013. p. 100.

19. Moon JE, Jang KS. The performance of healthcare-associated infection control guideline among hospital nurses: a structural equation model. Iran Journal of Public Health. 2018; 47(5):648-657.

20. Turnberg W, Daniell W. Evaluation of a healthcare safety climate measurement tool. Journal of Safety Research. 2008; 39(6):563-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.09.004
crossref pmid
21. Kang JE, Kim JY. Factors influencing the use of personal protective equipment related to acute respiratory infectious diseases among nurses in general hospitals. Journal of the Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2020; 27(3):277-288. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2020.27.3.277
crossref
22. Oh JE, Park JY. Factors influencing adherence to standard precautions for infection control among healthcare workers in general hospitals. Journal of Digital Convergence Research. 2018; 16(4):231-249. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2018.16.4.231
crossref
23. Smith LE, Serfioti D, Weston D, Greenberg N, Rubin GJ. Adherence to protective measures among healthcare workers in the UK: a cross-sectional study. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2022; 39(2):100-105. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211454
crossref pmid pmc
24. Korean Society for Healthcare-associated Infection Control and Prevention. Healthcare-associated Infection Control.. 1st ed.. Paju: Gunja Publishing; 2023. p. 169-172.

25. Lee MY, Park JH. Infection control organizational culture, awareness, and performance among emergency room nurses. Journal of the Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2021; 28(2):186-194. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2021.28.2.186
crossref
26. Kim JH, Kim SA, Jeon IY, Kim JI. Effect of integrated education on donning and doffing of personal protective equipment for non-medical personnel responding to emerging infectious diseases. Journal of the Korean Convergence Society. 2020; 11(5):353-361. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.5.353
crossref
27. Badran EF, Jarrah S, Masadeh R, Al Shimi R, Salhout S, Al Jaberi M, et al. Assessment of perceived compliance and barriers to personal protective equipment use among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic's second wave surge: "Walk to talk" cross-sectional correlational study. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. 2023; 17: e45. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.289
crossref pmid pmc
28. Choi SA, Jeong SY. Factors influencing intravenous injection practice for infection prevention among nurses in small and medium-sized hospitals. Journal of the Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2020; 27(4):344-355. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2020.27.4.344
crossref
29. Kwon MJ, Yi Y. Factors influencing infection control performance among nurses in integrated nursing care service wards during the COVID-19 pandemic. Korean Journal of Nursing Administration. 2022; 28(2):121-130. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2022.28.2.121
crossref
30. Korea Institute for Healthcare Accreditation. 2nd cycle acute care hospital accreditation survey standards (infection standards revised, ver. 2.1) [Internet]. Seoul: Korea Institute for Healthcare Accreditation; 2016. [cited 2024 December 9]. Available from: https://www.koiha.or.kr/web/kr/library/establish_view.do

31. Kim J, Park H. Effect of knowledge of standard precautions, nursing professionalism, and infection control organizational culture on adherence to standard precaution guidelines among hospital nurses. Journal of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2023; 30(2):225-235. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2022.30.2.225
crossref
32. Kim YH, Song YS. The effect of infection control organizational culture perceived by nurses at veterans hospitals on adherence to standard precautions: the mediating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Health Informatics and Statistics. 2021; 46(1):124-130. https://doi.org/10.21032/jhis.2021.46.1.124
crossref
33. Hu X, Zhang Z, Li N, Liu D, Zhang L, He W, et al. Self-reported use of personal protective equipment among Chinese critical care clinicians during 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e44723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044723
crossref pmid pmc
34. Mokhtari R, Safdari A, Hekmatpou D, Sahebi A, Moayedi S, Torres M, et al. Investigating the effective factors of using personal protective equipment from the perspective of nurses caring for COVID-19 patients: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(15):7882. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157882
crossref pmid pmc
35. Chughtai AA, Khan W. Use of personal protective equipment to protect against respiratory infections in Pakistan: a systematic review. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2020; 13(3):385-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.02.032
crossref pmid pmc