Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30426525›Full record

Trial reportContact dermatitis2019

Evaluating the effect of electronic monitoring and feedback on hand cream use in healthcare workers: Healthy Hands Project.

Maryam Soltanipoor, Thomas Rustemeyer, Judith K Sluiter, John Hines, Federico Frison, Sanja Kezic

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contact dermatitis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Occupational Hand Dermatitis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Maryam SoltanipoorCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1408-4351
Thomas RustemeyerDepartment of Dermatology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7580-0684
Judith K SluiterCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
John HinesDepartment of R&D, SC Johnson Professional Ltd, Denby, UK.
Federico FrisonClinical Unit of Occupational Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Sanja KezicCoronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1063-4547
Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLJohnson & Johnson (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Trieste · IT

Funding

DEB Group Ltd, Denby, UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of developing hand dermatitis (HD). Current guidelines on HD prevention recommend the use of emollients; however, in practice, adherence is poor.

objectiveTo assess whether the provision of creams, electronic monitoring and feedback on cream consumption can improve skin care in HCWs.

methodsA cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted on 19 academic hospital wards, including 501 HCWs, for 12 months. The intervention wards (n = 9; 285 HCWs) were provided with hand cream dispensers equipped with an electronic system to monitor use, which was regularly communicated to the HCWs by the use of posters. The process outcomes were self-reported cream consumption in both groups, and electronically measured consumption per ward in the intervention group (IG) vs the control group (CG).

resultsSelf-reported cream use at follow-up was significantly higher in the IG than in the CG, before (odds ratio [OR] 2.27; 95%CI: 1.29-3.97; P = 0.004) and during (OR 3.30; 95%CI: 1.80-6.06, P < 0.001) the shift, whereas at baseline there was no difference between the groups. In the IG, electronically measured cream use was, on average, 0.4 events per shift per HCW.

conclusionThe intervention improved hand cream use, and may therefore be considered as a practical strategy to promote skin care in HCWs. Notwithstanding this, the application frequency remained lower than recommended in the present study and current guidelines.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelSkin CareEmollientsFeedbackGloves, SurgicalHand DermatosesHand DisinfectionHealth PromotionHumansOdds RatioPatient ComplianceSelf ReportSkin CreamEmollientshand dermatitishealthcareirritant contact dermatitisoccupationalprevention

Identifiers

PMID30426525
PMCPMC6587989
OpenAlexW2901328695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.