Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35841075›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2022

Acceptability of an alcohol-based handrub gel with superfatting agents among healthcare workers: a randomized crossover controlled study.

Alexandra Peters, Jennifer Carry, Charlotte Cave, Julien Sauser, Didier Pittet

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexandra PetersInfection Control Programme and WHO Collaborating Center on Infection Prevention and Control and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland.
Jennifer CarryUniversity of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Charlotte CaveInfection Prevention and Control Department, University Hospital of Nîmes, Nîmes, France.
Julien SauserInfection Control Programme and WHO Collaborating Center on Infection Prevention and Control and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland.
Didier PittetInfection Control Programme and WHO Collaborating Center on Infection Prevention and Control and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland. didier.pittet@hcuge.ch.
University of Geneva · CHUniversité de Nîmes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealthcare workers often experience skin dryness and irritation from performing hand hygiene frequently. Low acceptability and tolerability of a formulation are barriers to hand hygiene compliance, though little research has been conducted on what specific types of formulation have higher acceptability than others.

objectiveTo compare the acceptability and tolerability of an ethanol-based handrub gel with superfatting agents to the isopropanol-based formulations (a rub and a gel formulation) currently used by healthcare workers at the University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

methodsForty-two participants were randomized to two sequences, testing the isopropanol-based formulation that they are using currently (Hopirub® or Hopigel®), and the ethanol-based formulation containing superfatting agents (Saniswiss Sanitizer Hands H1). Participants tested each of the formulations over 7-10 day work shifts, after which skin condition was assessed and feedback was collected.

resultsH1 scored significantly better than the control formulations for skin dryness (P = 0.0209), and participants felt less discomfort in their hands when using that formulation (P = 0.0448). H1 caused less skin dryness than Hopirub®/Hopigel® (P = 0.0210). Though overall preference was quite polarized, 21 participants preferred H1 intervention formulation and 17 preferred the Hopirub®/Hopigel® formulation that they normally used in their care activities.

conclusionWe observed a difference in acceptability and strongly polarized preferences among the participants' reactions to the formulations tested. These results indicate that giving healthcare workers a choice between different high-quality products is important to ensure maximum acceptability.

Indexed as

Hand DisinfectionHand Hygiene2-PropanolEthanolHealth PersonnelHumans2-PropanolEthanolAlcohol-based gelAlcohol-based handrubHand hygieneHand sanitizerHealthcare workersInfection preventionInterventionNursesRandomized crossover trialSkinTolerability

Identifiers

PMID35841075
PMCPMC9283849
OpenAlexW4285590029

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.