Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32932579›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Strengths and Weaknesses in the Risk Management of Blood-Borne Infections: Qualitative Research in Public Health.

Anita Gębska Kuczerowska, Artur Błoński, Joanna Kuczerowska, Robert Gajda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Anita Gębska KuczerowskaNational Institute of Public Health,24 Chocimska str., 00-791 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9268-3731
Artur BłońskiNational Institute of Public Health,24 Chocimska str., 00-791 Warsaw, Poland.
Joanna KuczerowskaDepartment Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Diabetology, Bródnowski Hospital, Medical University in Warsaw, Kondratowicza 8, 03-242 Warsaw, Poland.
Robert GajdaGajda-Med Medical Center in Pułtusk, ul. Piotra Skargi 23/29, 06-100 Pułtusk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8305-8130

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents the research from the first phase of our study on blood-borne risk management, wherein we solicited epidemiologists' and healthcare practitioners' expert opinions on a blood-borne infection risk assessment in Poland. Forty-two experts were recommended by epidemiology consultants and recruited from all districts in Poland. We used the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) method in the evaluation. Experts' opinions showed that there is room for improvement in the prevention of blood-borne infections. Commonly reported weaknesses in the risk assessment included gaps in knowledge and inappropriate procedures, which are largely caused by financial constraints and practitioners' lack of awareness of developments in their trade. Strengths included legal regulations for medical services and procedures, surveillance, and increasing awareness on the part of medical staff. When paired with the existing statistical data, these results provide a comprehensive view of the problem of blood-borne infections in Poland. The analysis supported the development of a strategy proposal to prevent blood-borne infections and enhance existing risk assessment procedures.

Indexed as

Public HealthBlood-Borne PathogensHumansInfection ControlInfectionsPolandQualitative ResearchRisk Managementblood-borne infectionsData-Aided Process Enhancement and Repairpublic healthrisk managementstrengthsweaknesses

Identifiers

PMID32932579
PMCPMC7558990

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.