Specific guidance on the size and composition of respiratory protective device (RPD) stockpiles for use during a pandemic is lacking. We explore the economic aspects of stockpiling various types and combinations of RPDs by adapting a pandemic model that estimates the impact of a severe pandemic on a defined population, the number of potential interactions between patients and health care personnel, and the potential number of health care personnel needed to fulfill those needs. Our model calculates the number of the different types of RPDs that should be stockpiled and the consequent cost of purchase and storage, prorating this cost over the shelf life of the inventory. Compared with disposable N95 or powered air-purifying respirators, we show that stockpiling reusable elastomeric half-face respirators is the least costly approach. Disposable N95 respirators take up significantly more storage space, which increases relative costs. Reusing or extending the usable period of disposable devices may diminish some of these costs. We conclude that stockpiling a combination of disposable N95 and reusable half-face RPDs is the best approach to preparedness for most health care organizations. We recommend against stockpiling powered air-purifying respirators as they are much more costly than alternative approaches. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;0:1-6).
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 168. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2022.
All research outputs
#304,485
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (Highwire)
#24
of 1,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,722
of 306,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (Highwire)
#2
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
