ArticleInfection prevention in practice2022
Task-based training to prevent surgical site infection: A formative evaluation.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical site infection prevention among surgical healthcare workers in Syria: a nationwide cross-sectional study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Surgical site infection prevention: a scoping review of strategies, implementation barriers, and emerging approaches.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lack of evidence-based training constitutes a serious impediment to preventing surgical site infections in low-middle income countries (LMIC). The purpose of this study was to design and implement an infection prevention training programme and investigate how it might work in an LMIC. Intended for healthcare professionals working in operating rooms, the programme was based on current instructional design principles of interprofessional, task-based learning. The second aim was to carry out a formative evaluation exploring participants' and facilitators' perceptions and experiences of the training. Methods: In undertaking this design-based research, we used a mixed-methods approach. The four session training was attended by anaesthesia and surgical trainees, registered nurses, technologists and included a video showing best practices, role plays, and peer-group reflection. We evaluated the programme through questionnaires, focus-group interviews with participants, written reflections by participants, and individual interviews with facilitators. Quantitative analysis was complemented by thematic analysis of focus-group and interview transcripts, reflections, and observer notes. Results: Our analysis revealed that participants had positive attitudes towards the training. They felt they had learned a lot from each other and the facilitators offered them the opportunity to interact with each other. Trainees especially valued the video presentation as it inspired them to revise old concepts and presented an excellent practical example of infection prevention in their specific setting. Conclusion: The training seemed to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice. However, direct observation of procedural skills and peer feedback could further reduce the gap, by enhancing the transfer of knowledge to practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.