Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26859688›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Cost-Effectiveness of a National Initiative to Improve Hand Hygiene Compliance Using the Outcome of Healthcare Associated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia.

Nicholas Graves, Katie Page, Elizabeth Martin, David Brain, Lisa Hall, Megan Campbell, Naomi Fulop, Nerina Jimmeison, Katherine White, David Paterson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of an Environmental Cleaning Bundle for Reducing Healthcare-associated Infections.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nicholas GravesInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Katie PageInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Elizabeth MartinInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
David BrainInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Lisa HallInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Megan CampbellInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Naomi FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nerina JimmeisonSchool of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Katherine WhiteInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
David PatersonCentre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Adrian G BarnettInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Inititiave implemented between 2009 and 2012 using healthcare associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia as the outcome. Baseline comparators are the eight existing state and territory hand hygiene programmes. The setting is the Australian public healthcare system and 1,294,656 admissions from the 50 largest Australian hospitals are included.

methodsThe design is a cost-effectiveness modelling study using a before and after quasi-experimental design. The primary outcome is cost per life year saved from reduced cases of healthcare associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, with cost estimated by the annual on-going maintenance costs less the costs saved from fewer infections. Data were harvested from existing sources or were collected prospectively and the time horizon for the model was 12 months, 2011-2012.

findingsNo useable pre-implementation Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia data were made available from the 11 study hospitals in Victoria or the single hospital in Northern Territory leaving 38 hospitals among six states and territories available for cost-effectiveness analyses. Total annual costs increased by $2,851,475 for a return of 96 years of life giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $29,700 per life year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% chance the initiative was cost effective in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, with ICERs of $1,030 and $8,988 respectively. There was an 81% chance it was cost effective in New South Wales with an ICER of $33,353, a 26% chance for South Australia with an ICER of $64,729 and a 1% chance for Tasmania and Western Australia. The 12 hospitals in Victoria and the Northern Territory incur annual on-going maintenance costs of $1.51M; no information was available to describe cost savings or health benefits.

conclusionsThe Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative was cost-effective against an Australian threshold of $42,000 per life year gained. The return on investment varied among the states and territories of Australia.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisBacteremiaGuideline AdherenceHand HygieneHumansInfection ControlModels, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CareRiskStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID26859688
PMCPMC4747462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.