Objective: To analyze differences in the perception of occupational exposure risk factors between experts and frontline nurses in infectious disease outpatient settings, and provide evidence for stratified training and management strategies. Methods: A convenience sample of 74 participants was enrolled, including 33 experts (nursing administrators, infection control specialists, and clinical experts) and 41 frontline nurses from infectious disease departments. A 15‑item risk factor scale previously developed by our team was used, with each item rated on a 5‑point Likert scale for importance. The Mann‑Whitney U test was applied to compare scores between groups, and Cohen’s d was calculated as a measure of effect size. Results: Experts gave higher overall ratings than nurses, with higher scores on 12 of the 15 items. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were found for 6 items. The five largest discrepancies were: insufficient knowledge of protective measures (difference value of 0.77, P = 0.001, d = 0.847), bare‑handed handling of contaminated sharps (difference value of 0.66, P = 0.026, d = 0.614), non‑standard needle withdrawal (difference value of 0.63, P = 0.035, d = 0.609), improper sharps disposal (difference value of 0.58, P = 0.027, d = 0.583), and complacency/overconfidence (difference value of 0.52, P = 0.022, d = 0.593). No significant differences were observed for environmental factors (workload, high‑risk time periods, high‑risk scenarios) or some person‑related factors (junior staff, physical/mental status). Conclusion: Experts and frontline nurses hold markedly different perceptions, particularly regarding protective knowledge, operational procedures, and psychological/behavioral factors. Nurses may underestimate the importance of these elements. Occupational protection training should strengthen both knowledge and practical skills, with targeted interventions to bridge the cognitive gap.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: