Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32887658›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2020

A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comparison between COVID-19 infection control guidelines' applicability and their protective value as perceived by Israeli healthcare workers, and healthcare executives' response.

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ricky Cohen, Nour Abed Elhadi Shahbari, Rana Hijazi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Optimized Post-Vaccination Strategies and Preventative Measures for SARS-CoV-2.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anat Gesser-EdelsburgSchool of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel. ageser@univ.haifa.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0003-4467-8799
Ricky CohenSchool of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel.
Nour Abed Elhadi ShahbariSchool of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel.
Rana HijaziSchool of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave., Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel.
University of Haifa · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are on the front line of the COVID-19 outbreak, and their constant exposure to infected patients and contaminated surfaces puts them at risk of acquiring and transmitting the infection. Therefore, they must employ protective measures. In practice, HCWs in Israel were not fully prepared for this sudden COVID-19 outbreak. This research aimed to identify and compare: (1) Israeli HCWs' perceptions regarding the official COVID-19 guidelines' applicability and their protective value, and (2) HCWs executives' response to HWCs' concern regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) shortage.

methodsA mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consists of: (1) An online survey of 242 HCWs about the application of the guidelines and PPE, and (2) Personal interviews of 15 HCWs executives regarding PPE shortage and the measures they are taking to address it.

resultsA significant difference between the perceived applicability and protective value was found for most of the guidelines. Some of the guidelines were perceived as more applicable than protective (hand hygiene, signage at entrance, alcohol rub sanitizers at entrance, and mask for contact with symptomatic patients). Other were perceived as less applicable than protective (prohibited gathering of over 10 people, maintaining a distance of 2 m', and remote services).

conclusionsHCWs need the support of the healthcare authorities not only to provide missing equipment, but also to communicate the risk to them. Conveying the information with full transparency, while addressing the uncertainty element and engaging the HCWs in evaluating the guidelines, are critical for establishing trust.

Indexed as

AdultAttitude of Health PersonnelBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Cross InfectionFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansInfection ControlInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalIsraelMaleMiddle AgedApplicability and protective valueCOVID-19Healthcare workersInfection control guidelinesPerception

Identifiers

PMID32887658
PMCPMC7472407
OpenAlexW3082309969

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.