Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 17;12(4):758-774.
doi: 10.3390/nursrep12040075.

How Are You Feeling? Interpretation of Emotions through Facial Expressions of People Wearing Different Personal Protective Equipment: An Observational Study

Affiliations

How Are You Feeling? Interpretation of Emotions through Facial Expressions of People Wearing Different Personal Protective Equipment: An Observational Study

José Luis Díaz-Agea et al. Nurs Rep. .

Abstract

(1) Background: The perception of others' emotions based on non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, is fundamental for interpersonal communication and mutual support. Using personal protection equipment (PPE) in a work environment during the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic challenged health professionals' ability to recognise emotions and expressions while wearing PPE. The working hypothesis of this study was that the increased limitation of facial visibility, due to the use of a personal protective device, would interfere with the perception of basic emotions in the participants. (2) Methods: Through a cross-sectional descriptive study, the present research aimed to analyse the identification of four basic emotions (happiness; sadness; fear/surprise; and disgust/anger) through three types of PPE (FFP2 respirator, protective overall and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR)), by using 32 photographs. The study was conducted using volunteer participants who met the inclusion criteria (individuals older than 13 without cognitive limitations). Participants had to recognise the emotions of actors in photographs that were randomly displayed in an online form. (3) Results: In general, the 690 participants better recognised happiness and fear, independently of the PPE utilised. Women could better identify different emotions, along with university graduates and young and middle-aged adults. Emotional identification was at its worst when the participants wore protective overalls (5.42 ± 1.22), followed by the PAPR (5.83 ± 1.38); the best scores were obtained using the FFP2 masks (6.57 ± 1.20). Sadness was the least recognised emotion, regardless of age. (4) Conclusions: The personal protective devices interfere in the recognition of emotions, with the protective overalls having the greatest impact, and the FFP2 mask the least. The emotions that were best recognised were happiness and fear/surprise, while the least recognised emotion was sadness. Women were better at identifying emotions, as well as participants with higher education, and young and middle-aged adults.

Keywords: coronavirus infections; expressed emotion; health personnel; professional burnout; protective devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photographs of the four emotions by an actress and an actor without personal protection equipment (from left to right: happy; sad; fear/surprise; and disgust/anger). *Both actors have agreed to display their images for this research.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Photographs of the four emotions by an actress and an actor with an FFP2 mask (from left to right: happy; sad; fear/surprise; and disgust/anger).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Photographs of the four emotions by an actress and an actor wearing protective overalls (PO)/body, mask and protection goggles (from left to right: happy; sad; fear/surprise; and disgust/anger).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Photographs of the four emotions by an actress and an actor wearing a powered air-purifying respirator-PAPR and an FFP2 mask (from left to right: happy; sad; fear/surprise; and disgust/anger).

Similar articles

References

    1. World Health Organization Rational Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), Interim Guidance. Mar 19, 2020. [(accessed on 14 July 2021)]. Available online: https://covid19-evidence.paho.org/handle/20.500.12663/840.
    1. Licina A., Silvers A., Stuart R. Use of powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) by healthcare workers for preventing highly infectious viral diseases—A systematic review of evidence. Syst. Rev. 2020;9:173. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01431-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roberts V. To PAPR or not to PAPR? Can. J. Respir. Ther. 2014;50:87–90. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marra A., Buonanno P., Vargas M., Iacovazzo C., Ely E.W., Servillo G. How COVID-19 pandemic changed our communication with families: Losing nonverbal cues. Crit. Care. 2020;24:297. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03035-w. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mheidly N., Fares M.Y., Zalzale H., Fares J. Effect of Face Masks on Interpersonal Communication During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Public Health. 2020;8:582191. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.582191. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources