Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34821565›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Electronic Monitoring Systems for Hand Hygiene: Systematic Review of Technology.

Chaofan Wang, Weiwei Jiang, Kangning Yang, Difeng Yu, Joshua Newn, Zhanna Sarsenbayeva, Jorge Goncalves, Vassilis Kostakos

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A Review on Assisted Living Using Wearable Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Chaofan WangSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8213-6582
Weiwei JiangSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4413-2497
Kangning YangSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7106-0022
Difeng YuSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7753-4591
Joshua NewnSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5769-6297
Zhanna SarsenbayevaSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1247-6036
Jorge GoncalvesSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0117-0322
Vassilis KostakosSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2804-6038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHand hygiene is one of the most effective ways of preventing health care-associated infections and reducing their transmission. Owing to recent advances in sensing technologies, electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems have been integrated into the daily routines of health care workers to measure their hand hygiene compliance and quality.

objectiveThis review aims to summarize the latest technologies adopted in electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems and discuss the capabilities and limitations of these systems.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were initially screened and assessed independently by the 2 authors, and disagreements between them were further summarized and resolved by discussion with the senior author.

resultsIn total, 1035 publications were retrieved by the search queries; of the 1035 papers, 89 (8.60%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were retained for review. In summary, 73 studies used electronic monitoring systems to monitor hand hygiene compliance, including application-assisted direct observation (5/73, 7%), camera-assisted observation (10/73, 14%), sensor-assisted observation (29/73, 40%), and real-time locating system (32/73, 44%). A total of 21 studies evaluated hand hygiene quality, consisting of compliance with the World Health Organization 6-step hand hygiene techniques (14/21, 67%) and surface coverage or illumination reduction of fluorescent substances (7/21, 33%).

conclusionsElectronic hand hygiene monitoring systems face issues of accuracy, data integration, privacy and confidentiality, usability, associated costs, and infrastructure improvements. Moreover, this review found that standardized measurement tools to evaluate system performance are lacking; thus, future research is needed to establish standardized metrics to measure system performance differences among electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems. Furthermore, with sensing technologies and algorithms continually advancing, more research is needed on their implementation to improve system performance and address other hand hygiene-related issues.

Indexed as

Cross InfectionHand HygieneElectronicsHealth PersonnelHumansTechnologyelectronic monitoring systemshand hygienehand hygiene compliancehand hygiene qualitymobile phonesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34821565
PMCPMC8663600

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.